Maria Thomas48 said:That is just a crude example which basically means: We cannot have every single citizen be successful (meaning they save money or cover their costs through their labor) because that is impossible right now. And that has absolutely nothing to do with work ethic; it's about how money is regulated within the country.
Take your own family as an example. If you were all trading within the family, how would you manage to make sure everyone covers their expenses from their work, and some even manage to save? It is an impossible mission without adding more money (either via an outside influx or by issuing it yourselves).
If you can't figure out the money regulation for your own working family, why do you think it works for the entire country?
I mean, it’s pretty obvious that not everyone is going to be equally successful, right? And honestly, why would they be? It just doesn't make sense. We aren't all built the same way—some people are tall, some are Black, some are born with disabilities—so why on earth would we expect everyone to turn out exactly the same? I guess it’s just human nature.
I honestly don't follow the logic here. In an era where the flow of capital, people, goods, and services is operating at a level that felt like pure science fiction just fifty years ago, why on earth would any nation try to chase autarky? Closing borders and retreating into isolationism just doesn't make sense anymore. Which country can actually afford to do that? Not one. Not the USA, not Japan, not some small developing nation—absolutely nobody. Yet, you seem stuck on this idea of a closed system and you just won't let it go. I suppose red_shrike made a decent point about zero-sum games, but that concept doesn't really apply to modern international trade, nor does it hold up when you look at total state economic activity, if you can even call it that these days.
Maria Thomas48 said:So now we've moved the goalposts to qualifications. You can't win an argument, so you just claim you're qualified to have the argument instead. Nice move.
Here is something to chew on: An Excel trading spreadsheet within a closed system
You can swap out the transactions and watch what happens. The result always points back to the same thing: for every single entity to turn a profit or at least break even, the government has to run a deficit. And that deficit gets covered by issuing debt. No banks involved.
No empty buzzwords here—just pure math.
I mean, look, your math is technically solid—nobody’s really going to dispute the calculations themselves—but the whole thing is built on fundamentally flawed premises. I suppose anyone can claim their model works perfectly if they just bake their own specific assumptions into the foundation, but you can't forget that an assumption is usually where the real trouble starts. 🙂
Maria Thomas48 said:So, it's better if bankers just fleece us dry for their own gain rather than having no debt and being in control of our own destiny?
Planned economy? A natural disaster doesn't yield a predictable result. If that's the logic, then we don't need a government at all. It’s also pretty logical that you probably support the European Union, where we won't be a real player, just a decorative state.
The government has to plan global supply because it shouldn't need a middleman. It has to plan infrastructure too. We've all seen that privatization doesn't actually improve a nation's financial standing. Which means we could sell everything off and deregulate everything, but there are still no solutions. There's no profit within a state unless you're exporting, which just moves the problem onto other countries. Anyone who carefully read what I wrote over at http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav could have grasped the whole thing and understood the current issue.
And in the end, it just leaves you with a basic Excel spreadsheet that is completely unsolvable for you people. Basically, you can't accept mathematics, but you can talk half-truths with total conviction just to try and prove that a lie is actually the truth.
If you’re actually putting in the work and staying productive, I don't think the bankers are going to skin you alive. Honestly, they're more likely to go after the people who just sit around waiting for a windfall to drop from the sky. And really, I guess there isn't much point in feeling sorry for those types. In most cases, if you're someone who stays active—investing, building things, growing what you have, even if you happen to use a little credit to get there—you probably don't need to spend too much time worrying about what your future looks like.
Maria Thomas48 said:So, it's better if bankers just fleece us dry for their own gain rather than having no debt and being in control of our own destiny?
Planned economy? A natural disaster doesn't yield a predictable result. If that's the logic, then we don't need a government at all. It’s also pretty logical that you probably support the European Union, where we won't be a real player, just a decorative state.
The government has to plan global supply because it shouldn't need a middleman. It has to plan infrastructure too. We've all seen that privatization doesn't actually improve a nation's financial standing. Which means we could sell everything off and deregulate everything, but there are still no solutions. There's no profit within a state unless you're exporting, which just moves the problem onto other countries. Anyone who carefully read what I wrote over at http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav could have grasped the whole thing and understood the current issue.
And in the end, it just leaves you with a basic Excel spreadsheet that is completely unsolvable for you people. Basically, you can't accept mathematics, but you can talk half-truths with total conviction just to try and prove that a lie is actually the truth.
What kind of chaos? In capitalism, everything is mapped out in minute detail; there isn't really any "chaos" involved. The fact that the state doesn't decide who gets to drink or who pays the bill—leaving that instead to the market—isn't some unpredictable force. There hasn't been a better regulator than the market. Any single individual is still just a person made of flesh and blood with their own biases and worldviews. The market simply reflects the collective preferences of an entire population in a given area. That's why the market is superior.
And why are you so against exporting? You say it's just passing the buck to another country? Well, maybe that’s true, but what’s wrong with that? We have to compete in the marketplace. If we don't export a product today, we'll just be forced to import it tomorrow. It's a market game; you have to compete and occasionally beat someone else just so you don't get crushed. It isn't pretty, and it isn't moral, and we'll all probably burn in hell for it, but that's reality. The sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be...
Maria Thomas48 said:I should probably carve it into a stone tablet: you can't fix monetary problems through tax policy. It doesn't work that way. If you collect less in taxes, there's less spending. And if spending drops, where is the farmer supposed to get his money? Someone else—not the farmer—would have to go into the red to make that math work. Usually, that's the people actually generating the wealth.
What about the USA? They progressed just fine with deflation and falling prices under the gold standard later on.
I don't find the situation in the USA interesting because I don't know enough about it. The gold standard was a scam. Once you have banks multiplying money, the gold standard becomes a total fraud. Money isn't actually backed by gold because the banks have already multiplied it. In >, they basically point out how the gold standard is used to create economic slavery. Having a limited supply of gold just blocks the growth of the money supply, which needs to keep up with the actual value being created in the economy.
Gold is too expensive to acquire, so using any kind of metal standard to guarantee value is just foolish and unnecessary. Only someone looking to destroy the country would suggest bringing back the gold standard.
The gold standard was the rule because it actually had some material foundation in physical gold, whereas today everything just runs on trust. I can wrap my head around being against the gold standard or against modern Wall Street by [Equivalent Name], but being against both at once... I don't quite follow that logic, I guess.
Maria Thomas48 said:So, you're telling me you can't provide a single citation? Not one?
An Excel spreadsheet is the ultimate truth for anyone who doesn't trust Tomica. If you don't want to rely on someone's word or some fancy formulas, then you just have to look at the raw math. This spreadsheet shows exactly how there is zero profit being made at the national level. I've been grinding away at this like it’s a 24/7 job. It's just the brutal truth.
We’ve already got emission regulators everywhere, including the private sector. If you’re starting to doubt what other people are doing, I'm actually volunteering here. I can step in and handle the money laundering oversight myself.
Money supply regulation has been tested more times than I can count. It’s one of those things people act like is some grand mystery, but we've seen the playbook run over and over again. We've watched the Fed pull the levers, tweak interest rates, and flood the system with liquidity, time and time after time. It's all very predictable when you look at the history of it. Just another cycle in the machine. 😉
The specific shapes don't really matter—it never worked out anyway.
That isn't true. Just watch the movie. secret oz.
The core truth here is that the government is the only entity capable of actually creating money. You can't argue with that reality. Anyone suggesting we lean into heavy regulation instead would basically be selling out the people. If banks are currently allowed to manipulate the money supply and effectively strangle the economy, then the state should have the power to manage it without causing all that damage. We also need to look at how much capital is leaking out through imports. We should be using customs barriers to control that outflow. The goal is to create a system where we are internally employed and productive, while making imported goods more expensive. This is really just a reflection of where our development stands right now. Once we actually grow and ramp up our exports, we could start lowering those tariffs to a certain point. After we clear out the national debt, the ideal setup is a balanced trade position with foreign nations. That’s how you maintain stability without messing things up. money vs. goods What actually happens when a country becomes a massive exporter—take China, for example. It’s an interesting dynamic. You have this huge influx of capital coming in from all over the world because everyone is buying their goods. It changes the whole structural makeup of the economy. It creates jobs, sure, but it also creates a heavy reliance on global demand. If people stop buying, things get shaky pretty fast. It’s a lot of pressure to keep that engine running constantly. Everything starts revolving around keeping those export numbers high. It's a very specific kind of economic weight to carry.
1. The government isn't the only entity creating money. On top of primary issuance, you have secondary issuance, and even tertiary issuance in the form of vouchers distributed through compensations, similar to what Konzum does. If you strip banks of their ability for secondary issuance, then what is the point of having banks at all?
2. Okay, fine—tomorrow the Fed decides to jack up interest rates on everything we import! The day after, you'll be standing outside their office, starving and thirsty, because the grocery stores are empty. The US imports essential food items, and why? Because our domestic food is too expensive. And why is it expensive? Because there are maybe two or three major producers in the country, while thousands of "farmers" are just sitting around waiting for subsidies, chilling out in Lamborghinis disguised as tractors!! In a situation like that, you really think introducing tariffs is the answer??
