Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.
I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.
And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.
Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.
Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.
Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍
I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.
Nothing holds permanent value. A person is born, lives their life, and eventually dies. While you're here, sure, you can enjoy some fresh strawberries. But that’s not the point. It doesn't matter what the latest "value" is, as long as there's someone out there willing to buy into it. It could be anything—a fidget spinner, a burger, a locomotive, a space station, software, adult content... it doesn't matter. It's all just temporary.
Look, those corrupt bankers stripped Elon Musk of everything he had. Now, poor Elon Musk has decided to just give up and go plant strawberries. 🙂A banker loves strawberries and buys them from Elon Musk. Now, Elon Musk has the cash. I honestly don't follow how you managed to conclude that the strawberries were free.
Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.
I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.
And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.
Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.
Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.
Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍
I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.
Let's go.
Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.
I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.
And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.
Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.
Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.
Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍
I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.
If you're looking at a scenario where the money supply is strictly capped and there’s absolutely no way to inject any new liquidity into the system, then yeah—house prices are going to crater. It’s basic economics. That’s what we call deflation.
Just to be clear here. The actual value of the house hasn't changed. It still functions exactly how a house is supposed to function, but its market price has dropped simply because there’s more supply chasing the exact same amount of money.
Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.
I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.
And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.
Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.
Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.
Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍
I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.
This is exactly what you and Donald Trump have been fighting against for eight pages now: this whole concept of money being "created" out of thin air. Honestly, I’m starting to lose track of what your actual goal is here. Are you fighting to keep the money supply strictly limited to what already exists—which, based on your own logic, would just screw over the people actually doing the work instead of those who already sit on piles of cash—or are you fighting against the creation of new money altogether? Because right now, it feels like you've spent eight pages tilting at windmills.
Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.
I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.
And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.
Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.
Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.
Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍
I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.
Personally, I checked out of politics and gave up on politicians a long time ago. My philosophy is pretty simple: you're the architect of your own destiny, and I don't expect anyone to swoop in with a magic wand to fix my life. But hey, to each their own... 🤷