Posts by Ashley Barnes9

coppercyclist2 said:I guess it would be hard for them to resist.
People stand at Chase counters praying to God that their personal loan gets approved. If they get rejected, they curse the banks. Then, when interest rates shift, they act surprised. It’s the same pattern everywhere. People at every level just keep taking on endless debt without a single complaint. Everyone wants instant growth right now, while simultaneously expecting everything to stay exactly as it is. $0.33 It’s worth the same now as it will be in twenty years... that’s just a contradiction.

lonehawk5 said:@Ashley Barnes9

I finally caught on to how these repo auctions work. Seriously, why on earth is the discount window rate sitting at a massive 9% when even commercial banks aren't charging that much? I don't get it...

It's basically designed to scare banks away from using that option (basically:http://www.centralbanksguide.com/lender+of+last+resort/)

Maybe they shouldn't be handing it out to anyone who asks???

It goes right back into the federal budget... which is actually a decent chunk of change.

I'm not so sure about that. Matthew Patel12 wasn't exactly working with "real" numbers here. Plus, 5% of 4.4 billion—which is what the entrepreneurs are making—is definitely not going to hit 16.5 billion.

330*5/100= ?

based on the Stoletov calculation, if 5% profit is covered by non-credit money

In this instance, I played it pretty safe by aiming for a 5% profit margin... but we all know that given how economic cycles and market volatility work, a 20% return is usually plenty.

lonehawk5 said:I was talking about this:

based on Stoletov’s math, if you try to cover a 5% profit margin using non-credit moneythat means the government would have to print roughly $2.5 billion a year just to make up for the deficit lost to savings...

lonehawk5 said:First off, you really need to wrap your head around why they even run these auctions and how the whole process works:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monet/operations/repo-auctions.pdf
Once you get that, you’ve gotta realize why that interest rate is sitting so high (9%)—and then you seriously need to look into what the Federal Reserve actually does with all that profit...

and then you need to know what the Federal Reserve does with the profits.

crimsonfalcon10 said:Let me explain exactly what’s broken in this non-credit money system... and why Matthew Patel just can't seem to grasp it. He keeps droning on about offsetting a 5% profit using non-credit money, but he refuses to reveal—or perhaps he simply doesn't understand—what that actually means when you look at the real numbers. The US GDP stands at roughly $27 trillion. According to the math provided by Stoletov, if we attempt to offset a 5% profit with non-credit money, we would need to print approximately $1.35 trillion annually just to cover the deficit lost to savings. Currently, the M1 money supply used to drive this GDP sits at around $2 trillion. This implies that Mr. Patel would have to expand the M1 money supply every three years just to maintain our current level of economic output! And how does this work in a system without interest rates? Based on Stoletov’s theories, investment stems from "under-the-mattress" savings, which is essentially the profit generated within a year. Therefore, $1.35 trillion flows under the mattress every single year. It all sounds wonderful and perfect until someone decides to start spending that cash. In ten years, there would be $13.5 trillion sitting under mattresses. I have to ask: how does Matthew Patel intend to control that mountain of cash to prevent it from flooding back into circulation? If even a mere 10% of those savings were released back into the economy, we would be hit with 30% inflation instantly. By the time the authorities realize the inflation is happening, they'll already be a month behind on their response. Ultimately, this entire path leads straight to hyperinflation and the total collapse of the Stoletov system.

Is the current monetary system actually effective? It keeps capital constantly circulating and prevents massive wealth accumulation that could trigger hyperinflation. With $45 billion in circulation, you can support a GDP of $330 billion. In contrast, under a Stoletov-style model, he might manage that for just one month! To sustain a $330 billion GDP over ten years, you'd need $210 billion in circulation, and for twenty years, that figure jumps to $375 billion.

In this instance, I played it quite safe by aiming for just a 5% profit... We all realize that given economic cycles and market volatility, a 20% return is more than sufficient... But if we were to factor that into the equation, Stoletov's entire system would collapse within a month! 🤣

Gregory Williams7 said:Nostradamus:
I don't require mathematical proofs when you tell me that printing money will inevitably trigger inflation.
What am I supposed to write to you? If you issue 5% more currency, does that automatically result in 5% inflation?

Furthermore, you cannot simply hand out cash if there is no underlying production. What happens if people aren't actually producing anything in exchange for that money? It is easy to distribute funds that people won't even value. The crisis arrives the moment those people realize they can't buy anything with it, because there might only be one loaf of bread left for a hundred people.

You must increase production and remove the parasites weighing down the workers. That is the only way out. History is littered with attempts to violate the economy through money printing, and we know exactly how those stories end. Yet, every generation produces some fool who believes he is the one who can harness the benefits of printing while somehow avoiding the consequences. It always ends in disaster.

Credit operates on the principles of supply and demand. I offer credit and an interest rate. If you don't like the terms, don't take it. The fact that you might struggle to repay it is not my concern; I will collect what is owed one way or another. Ultimately, the burden is on the debtor to decide if they can actually afford the loan. This process creates a class of debtors. I agree with you completely, but that isn't my problem. The capable should lead the less capable; that is how any democratic system ought to function.

From what I gather, you have an issue with the interest rate the Federal Reserve charges on the money we use. There is no need for that. It is a very small rate, easily covered with minimal effort. Considering the work that institution performs—regulation, oversight, systemic analysis—the rate might actually be too low.
Most of that interest paid to the Federal Reserve eventually flows back into the system through inflation and wages anyway. Or, if there hasn't been economic growth, it doesn't. But that is beside the point.

By printing money and handing it directly to the population, you are taking from those who have and giving to those who do not. You might create a "fairer" world, but you also create a generation of idlers and kill economic growth.

Is this a sufficiently clear mathematical explanation as to why you cannot simply print money and hand it to people?

And you really should specify exactly who you are referring to in your posts. Are you talking about the European Union, America, or somewhere else? Because things do not function the same way everywhere.

Gregory Williams7 said:Matthew Patel12, you have completely lost it. No offense intended.

Did I not already explain the origins of that GDP surge to you? And yet, you continue to insist on repeating the same tired arguments.
Only two people seem to be advocating for this theory regarding "non-credit" money. And for some reason, no one else appears capable of grasping it.

Both individuals share one glaring commonality: they refuse to listen to anyone. They persist in repeating the exact same points, even after those arguments have been thoroughly debunked multiple times. Why do they insist on this?

Here is an interesting system for you to consider:

External debt: 100% of GDP.
The average annual interest rate on debt currently sits at 7%. Is this figure sustainable?
The average GDP growth stands at 2%. Is this sufficient?

This is a situation that should concern you. It is a debt that can never truly be repaid. Everything else seems to be functioning perfectly.

Matthew Patel12 said:Ashley Barnes9, when I mentioned 5% of the money in circulation, I was referring specifically to a non-credit monetary system where all figures remain real. Currently, we are dealing with nominal values that have been artificially inflated beyond recognition. Following World War II, the United States provided Europe with the Marshall Plan, an infusion of approximately $12 billion. At the time, that represented roughly 5% of the U.S. GDP. Spread over four years, that amounted to just 1.25% of the annual U.S. GDP. Yet, with such a modest sum, Europe managed to boost its GDP by 30%, rebuilt itself from the ruins of war, and soon reached a GDP surpassing that of the United States. One achieves a far greater impact using non-credit money than through credit-based systems. When non-credit money enters circulation, it stays there permanently, continuously generating new GDP. If it circulates 100 times over a decade, it generates a GDP 100 times larger than the initial gift. Conversely, when money is issued as credit, it eventually has to be paid back, forcing the entire process to start from zero again.

crimsonfalcon10 said:It isn't dollars leaving; it's Euros... though even that is questionable... since most of this capital gets reinvested back into the US... meaning the money stays in the system and keeps circulating... what leaves are the Euros coming in via exports, tourism, investments, swap pensions, etc.

Getting the US out of a crisis is actually quite simple... reduce imports, increase exports and tourism revenue... and we're out of the crisis. Let's buy American and there won't be a problem... we don't need any credit-based money... just a shift in the mindset of citizens to value American products more, and that's it.

Maria Thomas48 said:I won't get into whether that analysis is right or wrong. A few years back, Gustav Mahler was doing his own analyses, warning us that we were headed straight for disaster if we didn't boost GDP growth. Between all the various scams and shady dealings, we're in a bigger mess than we would have been otherwise. But it is what it is.

There's no moving forward until this fraudulent financial system is tossed out.

We need to expose the whole banking-political-economic-media scam. The lack of trust in the government is what prevents things from actually starting. The only real chance is getting everyone informed, and that's where the work needs to happen. How can the public push back if they don't even know which way the wind is blowing? It's easy to rule over people who aren't informed. Even the opposition parties and the unions are useless when it comes to actual American interests. You have environmentalists fighting over ten trees and a sidewalk in Washington, D.C., while the entire country goes down the drain.

The government decided their main goal is joining the European Union. But my take on how the EU works is that once we join, we're essentially screwed. As soon as we enter the EU and the Federal Reserve becomes part of the European Central Bank, our fate is sealed. To change things, you'd have to convince 500 million people. I can't even convince a handful of people with pure mathematical proof, let alone expect a small nation like America to successfully overhaul the entire EU system. That's why my family won't be voting for EU entry. Regardless of any other perks, controlling the money supply this way is just wrong and it destroys the economy.

The current administration's policy won't work because it hasn't worked for any other administration either. These economic advisors really ought to be fired. They should just admit, "We don't know," instead of wasting everyone's time with their ignorance.

Once economic experts can actually deal with non-credit-based money and finally agree on a solution, that will be the next step toward fixing this. Up until now, it's been a taboo subject—something nobody dares to mention. Everyone is too busy enjoying their paychecks.

Regards

Maria Thomas48;28188077 said:

My analysis shows that America swallows about 3 billion European Central Bank units annually. However, bank profits have jumped nearly to that same level. So, there's really just crumbs left for everyone else.

Given how many parasites are feeding on the American body, your analysis is actually being too modest. There are endless parasites, from foreign interests down to domestic ones that drain capital out of the US only to deposit it into exotic offshore accounts. But honestly, the banking system as a whole—which is already 95% foreign-owned—is the biggest parasite on the American organism. Out of the roughly 30 billion dollars the banking system sucks up every year, only about 10 billion actually flows back into circulation through things like interest payments to American savers and wages for employees. But we also have to consider the outflow through external debt for both businesses and the government. If commercial banks account for only 8 billion out of an external debt totaling 43 billion European Central Bank units, then the remainder is equal to domestic placements, meaning we can easily say another 20 billion dollars goes toward interest on foreign debt every single year.

Furthermore, the next major parasite directly draining money from the US consists of the telecom companies, all of which are mostly foreign-owned. T-Mobile's annual revenue exceeds 8 billion dollars; if you add Verizon's revenue, which is about 50% less, we're looking at nearly 13 billion total. About a third of that is a direct outflow via dividends to foreign owners. When you realize the total wage mass in the US is around 100 billion dollars, spending 13 billion just on "phone calls" is a massive amount.
As for the local leeches who profited from the era of corporate looting and privatization—and who continue to suck funds through corrupt and rigged jobs—it's hardly worth even mentioning. And as for the privileged classes, from certain groups of retirees to politicians, there’s already been said far too much.
But very little is said about the utility mafias, even though we've recently seen our "diligent" justice system take some steps in that direction (for example, the Duke Energy case).
Speaking of Duke Energy, the revenues of that public utility are also enormous, exceeding 10 billion dollars. Before the recent crackdowns began, Duke Energy was constantly operating on the edge of profitability or recording losses; but now that the tide has turned, they are suddenly showing significant profits. A net profit of 1.5 billion dollars in just six months means 3 billion for the full year, and they still want to raise electricity rates. What’s particularly important to note is that they continue to act arrogant, wasting money on new vehicle fleets while maintaining average personal incomes much higher than the national average.
It's a similar story with other utility-based mafia operations. For instance, American water authorities have higher average earnings than even the financial sector (with gross salaries exceeding 12 $0.00). Their annual budget is over 2 billion dollars (in 2008, it was 2.6), yet we see the recent flooding and the inefficiency of a defense system that hasn't seen a single cent of investment in years. Where does that 2 billion go—the money taken from citizens and businesses through heavy fees? Whose accounts are those funds ending up in?
And don't even get me started on the highway agencies and the road mafia, along with the construction crews tied to them that built some of the most expensive miles of road on the planet... etc., etc...

I could go on like this until tomorrow, but this isn't really the main topic, and it's a bit off-topic since it's linked to the current shortage of liquid cash in the country.

What I really want to say is that printing any additional money (aside from convertible currency, which we obviously can't do) won't help at all until we fix this mindset and the way business is conducted.

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, within any non-credit money system, you have savings, loans, and interest rates, though those details are ultimately trivial. That entire sphere is a private enterprise that carries no business with the government. The state issues new money in its capacity as a non-credit issuer. Private citizens then save and lend the very funds that the state released into circulation like a gift. Consequently, this money simply changes hands without altering its total volume, which precludes both inflation and deflation. The money supply only expands when the state issues it as non-credit money.
Ms. Ashley Barnes9, non-credit money totaling 5% of the circulating supply is added directly to the existing money supply, specifically the M1 aggregate. It is quite that simple.

redmaker382 said:It feels like people are totally lost here, whether they're hoarding cash at Wells Fargo or just taking out loans blindly. I’m still backing Donna Chase12 on this one—when you compare the math between banks and ExxonMobil, there's barely a difference, but I won't bore you with the spreadsheets again. I sent them over to Ashley Barnes9, but no word yet.
Also, I'd love for anyone who’s gone through mezzanine financing to weigh in. Let's see where we can actually find a better deal on a home loan.

Michelle Foster13 said:???? what is this even about????

As for everything else... I've run those numbers plenty of times! I've actually sat down and compared my accounts at two major US banks, and honestly, I've realized that what I have right now works best for me.

I really don't get why you're making such a big deal out of this—why do you feel the need to post such nonsense? 😕

If you aren't going to offer any actual constructive math, suggestions, or helpful advice, then please, just move along from this thread 😛

Michelle Foster13 said:Keep that Midwest spirit alive!

Donna Chase12 said:Ashley Barnes9, I’m not gonna quote your second-to-last post just so I don't bloat this page with a massive wall of text... but just so you know what I'm reacting to here

Look, please—just go to Wells Fargo first. Actually ask them to run the exact numbers for a 20-year term versus a 24-year term... and then come back here trying to lecture us with math instead of just repeating some half-baked info you got from a quick phone call that’s confusing everyone who doesn't know the fine print of this loan...

Also, that 2.99% interest rate is the nominal rate... not the APR... and honestly, I have no clue under what specific conditions they'd even offer that... but don't go around saying it's impossible if you haven't actually done your homework...

I don't work for Wells Fargo, and I'm definitely not here to pitch them. I took out my mortgage there, and like I said—I know exactly why I chose them. One of the biggest reasons is so I don't end up in the mess you're in right now—dealing with interest rates creeping up and having to lose sleep over how to refinance everything...
The other reason is that I can pay it off early without getting hit by any crazy fees. Since I just came into some cash recently—and I'm expecting even more in a few years—I know I made the right call
But hey, do whatever you want... go switch your mortgage to a variable rate, and then in a year or two, you can be right back here stressing about what to do next...

And if you still need convincing, I'll happily drop my entire loan breakdown—the amount, the term, the monthly payments... whatever you want to see... then you can take those numbers to whatever bank you feel like and compare it for yourself...
When I was shopping around last year—before the Fed started hiking everything—Wells Fargo was clearly the better deal... maybe there's something slightly better out there now, but based on what you've said so far? You haven't convinced me.