Posts by Scott Rodriguez19

briskranger5 said:Reading through some of this, I can't help but be reminded of Brazil, which went bankrupt within a fifteen-year span—experiencing massive growth only to crash back into insolvency again.

Turkey

Since January 1st, 2015, the minimum wage there has been similar to what we see in the US, actually even higher in some respects. It’s no longer a place people visit just to hunt for cheap textiles or low-end goods.

Their public debt was hitting a breaking point, which is practically a unique phenomenon among nations heavily dependent on oil reserves.

Has anyone here actually taken a deep dive into the data for this country? How much of this is actually accurate?

Or are we looking at the harsh reality of the situation?

http://www.seebiz.eu/erdoganovo-ekon...gama/ar-93000/

When you actually step back and look at the big picture, this is just how things are. Honestly, there isn't much to be surprised about here.🙂

Andrew Barrett4 said:Please, let’s be real. You have plenty of smart, highly educated people who fall for this kind of nonsense just because they're naive. Genuinely, hopelessly naive. And if they aren't naive, they're just greedy, which is arguably worse.

I remember when a friend told me "in confidence" about some "inheritance email" involving a transfer through JPMorgan Chase, and you could practically see the dollar signs dancing in her eyes.$

It’s supposedly professional. Even Pomona. All with degrees from state universities.

I mean, what else is there to say...

Maybe she thought it worked the same way as getting a diploma.

goldengull3 said:Personally, I'm still holding out hope that we get hit by a crisis just like the one in the States... I'd love to see our wages, unemployment rates, and the cost of groceries and cars "drop" down to those American levels.

Well, if you listen to the unofficial numbers floating around, unemployment in the USA is hovering near 20%—though I suppose the standard of living there is still technically better, since their debt crisis hasn't even really started to bite yet, given that the national debt just keeps climbing. It's pretty much the same story over in Europe and here in the States. And honestly, it isn't some coincidence that the dollar and the euro are both losing significant value against everything else.

Harold Martin10 said:👍

I've chatted with quite a few Americans lately, and they've been telling me pretty much the same thing. Honestly, for them, the big debate is really just centered on social services versus taxation—that's the core of it. As for the standard of living? Well, it's worlds apart from what we have here. When people talk about a "crisis in the USA," it's a completely different beast than how we perceive a crisis at home. I mean, a single guy renting an apartment could live a decent life on $500 a week—and if my memory serves, flipping a burger at McDonald's pays about $8.50 an hour, so just do the math on that.

Besides, even during the worst economic downturns in the US, things weren't actually that bad for people who lived within their means. A lot of folks ended up in trouble not because they weren't making enough, but because of reckless spending or taking on loans they realistically couldn't afford to pay back.

I don't know what kind of "crisis" you guys are actually talking about. It’s hard to claim there isn't a crisis when you can see the letter "K" looming on the horizon. Sure, maybe a single person in the USA could scrape by on $500 a month. But the real question is—what happens to someone once that $500 disappears?
The real issue facing the upcoming crisis isn't just unpaid credit card bills; it's the massive loss of jobs that were essentially manufactured through excessive debt.

I am genuinely curious—what on earth happens after Tuesday if the Republicans and Democrats can't reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling? I mean, what does that even look like in practice, and what kind of chaos are we looking at if the US actually defaults next week?

fadedwolf20 said:So, what's the point of economics anyway? It's basically just setting the rules for how we divvy up LIMITED resources. Land, apartments, houses, labor, stuff people make... you name it. But honestly? Economics has built this massive empire that mostly just serves itself. Interest rates, inflation, deflation, derivatives, futures, loans, stocks, the big exchanges—it's all such a headache of terms, but the core concept is actually super simple:

The entire engine of Western civilization is fueled by constant growth. Growth, growth, and more freaking growth! But here's the kicker—we live on one finite planet with limited resources, so obviously, this endless expansion can't, and won't, last forever. I'd argue the 2008 crash happened because we finally slammed right into the physical limits of our environment. This whole economic setup is basically a giant Ponzi scheme that expects goods, services, and even the human population to keep climbing forever just to stay afloat. Then, back in 2005, we hit peak-oil, which sent oil prices skyrocketing to $147 a barrel by 2008, triggering this massive avalanche of crap that we're still drowning in today.

To me, it makes perfect sense—the root cause is that money is issued through credit along with interest, and to pay off that interest, you *have* to create new value. But right now, the whole system is shaking because we can't create that new value anymore—we've hit an energy ceiling and we're teetering on the edge of an energy abyss. Naturally, that means the credits and the interest can't be paid back... It's all over, folks.

The saddest part? People aren't even reading the market signals. Since oil is the literal FOUNDATION of our modern world, when oil gets expensive, everything else goes up too—so most people miss the real culprit behind the price hikes. They're all talking about some subprime mortgage crisis in the US and how the bankers decided to 🙏play too hard. But honestly? They've been playing this game since the end of WWII; the only difference is that back then, they actually had the resources to back up their moves, and now they don't...

Man, we had it way too good, which is why we ended up in this Idiocracy situation. We didn't invest enough in R&D and we were just too lazy, even though these problems were predicted decades ago by guys like Dr. Hubbert.

I suppose it really depends on your perspective—people tend to twist facts to fit whatever narrative they prefer—but if you actually look at the numbers, oil has never truly been "cheap." Furthermore, there is the issue of purchasing power; that single dollar today doesn't carry nearly the weight it did in 1970 or even 2000.
In my view, you have to look at some kind of meaningful average rather than just pinning two isolated values against each other and pretending you've reached a logical conclusion.

Robin Wright27 said:We lived through socialism here, and if you ask me, it was a decent system—it was just the people who exploited it... through excessive sick leave, endless days off, and so on.

Well, first off, it was communism—at least from what I understand—and it wasn't until after the US managed to secure those loans that they could even afford to maintain a socialist setup.

Maria Thomas48 said:Who was talking about banning imports? I mentioned raising tariff barriers so that importing becomes expensive enough that it actually makes sense to produce things right here in America.

Customs and banking are linked because this whole thing is a scam based on the idea of a free market. The banks are part of the scheme. Just read what I wrote and stop taking my words out of context.

Even Slavko Kulić said the Federal Reserve isn't a public institution at all—it’s certainly not "the people's bank." The Federal Reserve is complicit in this fraud; Rohatinski basically got an award for it. The Fed regulates the market through money supply, but at the same time, they stifle the economy because they keep interest rates high just to prevent trade and business from growing, which would lead to spending earned money on imports.

Instead of this farce that leads to endless debt, we could issue our own currency, though we still need foreign exchange for imports. Even if we only borrowed to cover imports without speeding up the pace, we’d cut new borrowing by about two-thirds. You can tell people until you're blue in the face not to buy imported goods and food, but as long as they're cheaper, people will buy them. To lower our production costs, we need to get capital the cheapest way possible—through issuance, not debt. And that kind of issuance isn't backed by foreign currency, so any money we earn can only be spent on goods we produced ourselves.

I feel like I'm repeating myself constantly. We can live well if we are hardworking and productive. A tariff wall and exchange rate adjustments make that possible. If we have a steady flow of foreign currency from tourism, shipbuilding, and exporting quality food, we can cover our needs for imported goods.

That's the connection: banking, interest rates, customs, manufacturing, and the free market.

Besides, simply changing the exchange rate under the current system won't work because the debt keeps growing anyway; there are just more zeros added to the national currency. That's just another scam. Purchasing power isn't destroyed by interest rates on loans; it's destroyed by devaluing the currency. It creates an illusion of competitiveness, but it doesn't stop the creation of limitless debt. Debt still accumulates through taking foreign loans in hard currency; it's just that buying things is blocked in a different way. In this illusion, economic growth seems possible at first, but then the mounting debt starts to choke it out, and there's no coming back. You can see how this plays out in Mexico. They recently had to take on more debt. Their minister thinks this will do something for the Mexican economy. Time will tell if he was perhaps a bit mistaken in his statement.

Look, we are just the kind of nation where everyone wants the lifestyle without wanting to do the heavy lifting. Honestly, you have to start with the people—not with the banks or the monetary system—otherwise, even communism might have actually worked.

Maria Thomas48 said:The topic here is banking reform, not agriculture. You're posting in the wrong thread.

Look, did I actually mention import bans or did you just imagine I did? Because if we're talking about how customs relates to the entire financial sector—well, I guess that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.

Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?

I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....

You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.

I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.

Let's start talking about specifics.

How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?

Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....

And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?

If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?

So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?

I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.

The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:

Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation

Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.

The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.

If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.

And there it is—that’s your biggest blind spot right there. Economics is a hell of a lot more complicated than simple arithmetic. It’s about strategy, not just adding up 1+1.
Let me throw a little math question your way—if you actually know how to solve it: Suppose this year you produced enough food to sustain 4 million people, but you're tasked with feeding 5 million. How many people die of starvation?

mistystag90 said:Even without the USA, they're already bottoming out.

Vance is already broke as a joke, even without the USA.

Vance already oversaw the privatization process, and honestly, a good chunk of our assets were gutted long before any federal intervention or globalist takeover could happen. This wasn't some grand scheme orchestrated by the USA or some shadowy "foreign elite"—whatever conspiracy theory happens to be trending this week. Most of that damage was done right here at home by our own local "patriots."

Some people have already sold their souls, even without the USA in the picture.

And who exactly should be at the helm? Who takes the lead as the primary driver here?

Those aren't exactly smoking guns if you ask me. But look, you’re right about one thing—everyone looks out for their own interests, period. That’s just how the world works. Honestly, that's exactly what we should be doing too: grabbing every opportunity that comes our way with the American market. Instead, we'll probably just stick to our old ways, sitting around complaining and pointing fingers at everyone else for our own "bad luck."

The question is, what kind of opportunities? What market? We have a domestic market right here, and imports happen regardless of what anyone else does.

briskdrifter3 said:That is precisely the case. It isn't just that jobs won't decrease—rather, the needs across Europe will actually expand, though certainly not uniformly across all sectors. The economy is fundamentally broken... my colleague Linda Johnson15 serves as a perfect illustration here. Europe is absolutely saturated with economists and various types of managers. Young people seem quite fond of sketching out charts and wearing expensive suits, but unfortunately, a corporation doesn't consist solely of upper management and sales departments... and everything cannot simply be outsourced..
On the other hand, there is a glaring deficit of technical expertise in virtually every field. Some might argue that we simply cannot compete with the Chinese or Indians, but they are gravely mistaken. Anyone who has worked directly with them—as I have, within my own firm, dealing with both groups—understands there is zero chance they can ever compete with a European in roles requiring genuine expertise and inventiveness. Sure, they are inexpensive, but cultural and historical traditions have molded the Chinese into obedient, uninspired workers, while the Indians have become a mass of lazy individuals with degrees... My company actually shuttered its office in India, not because of the cost, but because of the staggering expenses required to fix the blunders they committed. They were useful only for mindless copying and pasting—and even then, they were incredibly lazy..

"A mass of lazy idiots with fancy degrees."😁 It turns out Germans and Austrians hold very similar opinions about us.
"We're only good for copying and pasting, and even then, we're incredibly lazy."👍
It isn't that we don't want to work—the issue is that we don't have the damn time!

I suppose those 3, 5, or 7 years could potentially be applied to America as well—it’s just a guess, really. From what I gather, Bulgaria and Romania are facing that deadline right now, and there is some talk within the European Union about extending the period🙂 by another 3, 5, or 7 years.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The currency will definitely lose value, sure, but people will be crushed by much higher debt loads. In a model without non-credit money issuance, the money supply grows way slower than the total debt—I actually broke this down during my segment on Capital Network. On top of that, the credit crisis is only going to get worse because the gap between total debt and the money supply widens every single day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMZsYfyPwzo

I don't know if you caught this part... in a debtor inflation model, once that short-term credit expansion ends, prices skyrocket while wages stay flat. That's your classic stagflation scenario.

One thing is certain: the mere passage of time works against people due to cumulative interest in a model lacking non-credit money issuance. It puts everyone in a worse spot, not a better one.

Also, who told you that wages and prices would just keep climbing indefinitely? Look around—real estate is worth less than it was five years ago, wages have stagnated, and mortgage payments are through the roof. Your theory only holds water if a credit crisis (an inability to service the debt) doesn't happen. But a credit crisis is an inevitable feature of any system where debt outpaces the money supply. Even those claiming the Euro will solve our problems are being misled; many countries that adopted the Euro are actually in the tightest spots right now.

The reality is that people who took out loans followed your exact logic—thinking it would get easier to pay them back over time—but life showed them the exact opposite. Thinking things will just "fix themselves" without changing the entire monetary system is pure fantasy.

Pure debtor inflation paired with rising tax rates is going to wreck both individuals and the economy. That's the biggest secret the financial elite is hiding.

Again, the issue is this "cumulative interest" trap. Picture a country with a million productive citizens. They all take a one-year loan from a $333 at 10% interest. After a year, they collectively owe $367. They have to pay back $1.1 billion. The Bank walks away with $100 million in profit. Consequently, everyone is $33 than when they started. To cover it, they take out a new loan, but this time it's $367. With $33, they try to offset the loss, leaving them with $333 in debt. But now, they owe $403. After two years, everyone is $70 than their starting point. Meanwhile, the Bank has pocketed an extra $110 million, totaling $210 million. As they keep taking larger and larger loans, the cycle repeats with even greater losses; you end up drowning in debt with zero cash left.

So, do you still honestly believe that paying off debt gets easier over time?

So, let’s be honest here—people were taking out loans based on completely flawed logic, which is just the reality of the situation. They were spending money they hadn't even earned yet—taking out massive loans for cars, houses, and all sorts of other luxuries—while barely giving a second thought to how they’d actually survive tomorrow or whether their jobs were even secure. Now that the dust is settling, I have to wonder: how much of this blame lies with the banks, and how much belongs to the people themselves?

Nicole Gomez38 said:The currency will definitely lose value, sure, but people will be crushed by much higher debt loads. In a model without non-credit money issuance, the money supply grows way slower than the total debt—I actually broke this down during my segment on Capital Network. On top of that, the credit crisis is only going to get worse because the gap between total debt and the money supply widens every single day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMZsYfyPwzo

I don't know if you caught this part... in a debtor inflation model, once that short-term credit expansion ends, prices skyrocket while wages stay flat. That's your classic stagflation scenario.

One thing is certain: the mere passage of time works against people due to cumulative interest in a model lacking non-credit money issuance. It puts everyone in a worse spot, not a better one.

Also, who told you that wages and prices would just keep climbing indefinitely? Look around—real estate is worth less than it was five years ago, wages have stagnated, and mortgage payments are through the roof. Your theory only holds water if a credit crisis (an inability to service the debt) doesn't happen. But a credit crisis is an inevitable feature of any system where debt outpaces the money supply. Even those claiming the Euro will solve our problems are being misled; many countries that adopted the Euro are actually in the tightest spots right now.

The reality is that people who took out loans followed your exact logic—thinking it would get easier to pay them back over time—but life showed them the exact opposite. Thinking things will just "fix themselves" without changing the entire monetary system is pure fantasy.

Pure debtor inflation paired with rising tax rates is going to wreck both individuals and the economy. That's the biggest secret the financial elite is hiding.

Again, the issue is this "cumulative interest" trap. Picture a country with a million productive citizens. They all take a one-year loan from a $333 at 10% interest. After a year, they collectively owe $367. They have to pay back $1.1 billion. The Bank walks away with $100 million in profit. Consequently, everyone is $33 than when they started. To cover it, they take out a new loan, but this time it's $367. With $33, they try to offset the loss, leaving them with $333 in debt. But now, they owe $403. After two years, everyone is $70 than their starting point. Meanwhile, the Bank has pocketed an extra $110 million, totaling $210 million. As they keep taking larger and larger loans, the cycle repeats with even greater losses; you end up drowning in debt with zero cash left.

So, do you still honestly believe that paying off debt gets easier over time?

Look, let’s be honest—the people who went out and signed those massive loan agreements already destroyed themselves years ago. They basically handed over their futures the moment they put pen to paper. And honestly? I don't think even a complete overhaul of the system is going to fix it at this point. It's likely too late for them.
I’m not entirely sure which economy you're actually referring to here—it's a bit unclear—but I guess that’s the problem, isn't it?

Nicole Gomez38 said:Declaring the currency clause unconstitutional is our only way out. However, the Supreme Court is essentially under the thumb of the ruling party, and both they and the opposition (Democratic Party) are firmly aligned with the banks. In other words, the entire system—the banks, the media, everyone—is controlled by both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The only real solution is for citizens to vote for candidates who actually oppose this currency clause. Right now, that would be the Reform Party and Donald Trump's labor supporters—though I worry those labor folks are just as tied to the status quo since they haven't mentioned changing the monetary model. Without fixing the underlying monetary model, getting rid of the currency clause is impossible.

I break down the whole situation in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

Look, let’s be real—you can't exactly declare the Fed's policies illegal without running into massive legal hurdles. If they did, what then? Would they just ban all new loans tied to the Swiss Franc and force everything back into Dollars? I mean, honestly... changing the laws right now makes zero sense—not even a bird sitting on a branch would touch a loan in Swiss Francs at this point. Besides, you actually said it yourself: banks aren't even handing out Swiss Franc loans anymore. The whole thing isn't about legality, though—it's about politics. This is about finding a political fix for the people who are already drowning and struggling to make their payments.
Giving people some false sense of hope by throwing around those old-school, proletarian revolutionary slogans—honestly, I don't think that's the right place or even the right time. You’re about 60 or 70 years behind the curve here. Back then, you couldn't just Google the facts to see through the nonsense, so maybe you could get away with that kind of math... but today? It doesn't add up.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The banks didn't go out and borrow in Swiss Francs—they borrowed in Euros. But since they knew the Euro was unstable and headed for a dip, they offered people interest rates that were 1% or 2% lower just to lure them in. They knew exactly what they were doing; they anticipated the Euro would drop at least 20%, allowing them to rake in massive profits once those currency clauses kicked in against the Swiss Franc.

They’ve finally realized how strong the Swiss Franc is—and more importantly, they've caught wind that it might actually drop back to its baseline value. Because they're terrified of taking that hit, they aren't willing to gamble anymore; they're strictly issuing loans in Euros now.

A buddy of mine—he’s a banker with a PhD in economics and used to advise the board at a major Wall Street firm—once told me how the higher-ups would constantly pressure him to push those Swiss Franc-denominated loans on people. It wasn't even because the bank itself was heavily leveraged in Swiss currency (I mean, Switzerland's economy is tiny compared to the Eurozone, right?), but rather because they saw a massive opportunity. They knew the Franc was far more stable than the Euro, and they figured if the Euro tanked, they'd end up with fat wallets and a trail of financially ruined clients whose assets they could then just swoop in and seize.

If you were to look at the Swiss Franc right now—and I mean really look at it—it's a whole different story. $2.00 I took it. $205 Taking out loans in Swiss Francs was such a gamble—once the Franc dropped to 5.15, those folks were suddenly looking at much smaller repayments. Talk about a lucky break! $172 If you factor in the principal plus interest, the bank would be looking at a total loss.

The Euro is fundamentally unstable because the European Central Bank refuses to allow for non-debt-based money issuance—instead, every single cent entering circulation is tied to debt. In this model, thanks to the compounding effect of interest and constant debt accumulation, the total debt swells much faster than the actual money supply. Eventually, that leads straight into a credit crisis where nobody can actually pay back what they owe—which is exactly what we’re seeing unfold in the Eurozone right now. Check out this video if you want to grasp the core of the problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

You forgot to mention that the Republican Party was in power back then—and we were at war, too. Honestly, one was just as bad for the economy as the other!

If the banks were borrowing in Euros and they actually had any foresight regarding how fast the Swiss Franc would skyrocket—I mean, if they truly knew what was coming—why on earth didn't they just pivot? Why wouldn't they have used those Euros to buy up Francs immediately instead of pumping out all these loans that they now can't even collect on? It makes zero sense. And to top it off, the real estate their clients were buying back then has plummeted in value by something like 40% today. They could have just sold those Francs right now and walked away with a 30% profit instead of sitting around waiting twenty years for nothing.
Some of these bankers, board advisors, and so-called "experts" in economics—honestly, they're something else. I mean, let’s be real: even today, there isn't a chance in hell I’d ever touch a loan denominated in Swiss Francs. Once someone starts chasing after the Swiss Franc, they rarely find their way back to sanity—or their money—anytime soon.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The currency clause needs to be abolished for old loans too. Let’s be real: banks aren't even offering these Swiss Franc-based loans anymore—ask yourself why.

Basically, we need to kill the currency clause entirely, declare it unconstitutional, and force them to refund every cent overcharged to debtors. Period.!!!

Why?

wiredotter12 said:Thanks, but it isn't free. 😛

Look, if you can't even move property here in the States, why on earth would a foreigner shell out that kind of cash? I mean—it doesn't make sense—they don't have any reason to deal with the headache of settling up real estate matters in America just to pay our local prices.

Lawrence Wright7 said:The principal is sitting at about $80,000. I poured a ridiculous amount of sweat, blood, and tears into this place—probably another $15,000 in upgrades alone.
Yeah, I’m planning to drop the price just enough to move it, but I'm not going to get fleeced.
I’ve actually signed contracts with three different real estate agencies here in the States, and they all tell me the price is totally fair
considering the square footage and how well-equipped everything is.
http://www.zillow.com/property-details...zik=us&nid=178
It’s just that the timing for selling right now is absolutely terrible.

Maybe you should start by asking yourself: if someone walked up to you today and offered you this exact apartment at this price, would you take out a mortgage right now to buy it?
From what I can gather, you're looking for $1,500 per square foot.
Every market cycle has its own reality. In my opinion—and I could be wrong here—it’s not necessarily that the timing is bad; it might just be that the price is too high if you can't find a buyer.

Maria Thomas48 said:.......

Anything else I could say would just be repeating myself.

Every single hour, our government is basically throwing away $1.37 million because they haven't stepped up to stop banks from multiplying it and turning it into a tool for control—debt.

Think about how much that actually is—for 186,000 employees earning an average $1767 salary.
And a huge chunk of that cash would cycle right back into the treasury through sales tax. So, you'd essentially boost potential employment by another 23%, and that extra 23% would generate even more sales tax, and so on. Total employment could climb to 279,000 (that's over a 150% increase). Basically, using that $12 billion in non-credit money issuance could put nearly 280,000 people to work. That means we could employ 90% of the unemployed. Of course, the banks wouldn't be allowed to multiply the money anymore. The annual issuance would be equal to $1000 per person!? Just so nobody claims it's some massive, overwhelming amount of money. If you put that cash into a mutual fund, over 40 years of work, it would result in a balance of $40000 per person. A lot. I don't think so. You could buy a decent used car with that. Think about it: 40 years of work. 😕

That all sounds fine on paper—it would be wonderful to hire up 90% of the unemployed. But what exactly are those 186,000—and eventually 280,000—employees supposed to actually *do*? 🤷 Build new apartment complexes all over Washington, D.C.?