Based on my experience in auditing and accounting, the implementation of HSFI is incredibly poor in small and medium enterprises, and frankly criminal in some large corporations that should be following MSFi. There are countless reasons for this. In America, bookkeeping dominates rather than true accounting. Most people just "record entries," largely because they don't sign off on their work or hold themselves accountable to a professional association or the state for what they've certified. Even the regulatory bodies aren't much better. In America, accounting isn't treated as a profession; it’s treated as a trade. You can practically walk off the street, grab a manual, and $167 start booking entries every month. Generally speaking, there is zero accountability here, which I suspect is a byproduct of fifty years of communism where individual responsibility simply didn't exist. All I hear is people claiming they didn't know, weren't informed, or never saw anything. I believe the CFO of Walmart once mentioned he only saw reports after they were published in the public registry or something similar. While it's good that people are organizing, this doesn't feel like the kind of organization seen with the AICPA, ACA, or CPA, where professionals unite to advance the field and establish ethical standards and expectations. I fear this current movement is more like a union—just a group fighting against anything that disturbs the swamp and the status quo...
Those directives are still fundamentally flawed. It seems like it's just a split based on value and whether you're an individual or a corporation. You see the issue... imagine driving to Germany to buy a car, and Germany pockets 19% VAT while the US gets zero. For lower values, you'd pay 19% VAT in Germany, whereas the US would act like you never even bought it. But I believe higher values, including cars, are exempted, so you'd end up paying 0% in Germany and 25% in the US just for fiscal reasons...
Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want. Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.
The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:
1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion) 2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export 3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods 4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel 5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors 6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")
There isn't much difference between traditional banking and Islamic banking...
slywolf57 said:Pernar, if I’m following you correctly, you’re pushing to abolish the Federal Reserve and hand its powers over to the government, essentially letting the state print money whenever they feel like it? And you want to ban commercial banks from issuing loans that aren't backed by their deposits and capital?
In theory, it sounds fine, but reality would tell a different story. Driven by short-term political wins, the government would likely trigger hyperinflation. As for the second point, while it might be the only sustainable way for banks to operate long-term, interest rates would skyrocket, and the American public wouldn't stand for it.
Is there actually any country out there running a system like the one you're proposing? I'd love to see how that looks in practice.
A banking system based on full reserves is basically just a storage locker. You shouldn't expect interest on your deposits; instead, you'd likely end up paying fees just to keep your money there.
Nicole Gomez38 said:Every single libertarian out there is pushing to dismantle this criminal monetary setup and hand control back to the government.
In America, you can't pull that off without nationalizing the banks—which we could achieve just by tweaking tax laws. We’d essentially squeeze the banks into losses until foreign owners get tired of paying for endless bailouts and just hand the keys over to the state.
And let's be clear: I'm not talking about those old-school, communist-style expropriations.
You also have to realize that what I’m proposing for the banks is exactly what the government is already doing to us—taking nearly 40% of our paychecks while people are barely keeping their heads above water.
@"On the other hand, debt default shouldn't really worry the borrowers, but rather the lenders."
Yeah, sure—that's easy to say when the bank isn't seizing your entire paycheck or kicking you out of your house.
PS: Nationalizing banks isn't some "communist" plot. Sweden did it back in '92 during their credit crisis, which was pretty similar to what we're facing now; France pulled the same move in '82. If you want to see how this has been handled globally, do some digging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
It is clear you lack any real understanding of different schools of economic thought. Grouping libertarians with concepts like nationalization or state-driven corporate insolvency is honestly laughable. Libertarians oppose the current form of the Federal Reserve because they view it as excessive government interference; they certainly don't want to hand more power back to the state. They advocate for minimal regulation, low taxes, and reject the welfare state because it conflicts with their ethics of self-reliance. They want the smallest government possible... For a libertarian, nationalizing anything or forcing a company into debt via state action is an absolute taboo.
Nicole Gomez38 said:I’m not an economics major, but I follow the field closely; honestly, if you just look at the facts and connect the dots, the problem and its solution become obvious.
Besides, you won't find this curriculum in any university textbook—educational institutions are essentially controlled by the political elite, which in turn answers to the kings of money.
I already laid out my solution during my appearance on independent TV...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rr1uh39tr4
Just so we're clear, the flaws in the monetary system are the primary reason I started these protests.
That is pure nonsense. You're flooding the forum with pseudo-conspiracy theories and amateur economics. To suggest that every single educational institution—spanning hundreds of nations, tens of thousands of professors, and millions of students and textbooks—is under the thumb of "global capital" is nothing short of paranoid.
1. slashing costs (public sector employees) 2. cutting spending (pensions) 3. trimming expenses (healthcare and everything else) 4. restructuring debt 5. the IMF 6. introducing new taxes, maybe an estate tax or something
I mean, if anyone actually has a better idea, they should probably just email the Democratic Party—their contact info is right there on their website.
The real turning points were:
1. joining the European Union 2. making it easier for labor to move around (which basically meant Americans leaving) 3. opening up the real estate market (selling off property to foreigners, people moving in from abroad)
Everything else about printing money and whatnot... I guess it doesn't really matter.
I honestly believe most people don't even realize yet that we're headed toward an even larger wave of young people leaving the country...
...he advocated for federal interventionism rooted in tax relief for businesses, direct support for new jobs and investment, and fresh government-led infrastructure projects—specifically within energy, transportation, and logistics, which remain top priorities for the American government.
These types of programs are fascinating. They mention tax cuts, government subsidies, and state-run projects all in the exact same breath...
Richard Lewis16 said:Does he actually have to show up for the first hearing? Or maybe the second one?
Besides that, the legal fees should at least be split down the middle, and given how bad things are for him, they might even let him off the hook entirely
He isn't even in the wrong here; he's willing to pay it back, he just doesn't have the cash sitting around right now so someone really needs to drag him through the court system if they want results😉
I'd much rather help out a fellow forum member than some random clerk at a government office honestly, if he messed up, he should just pay it and be done with it instead of letting them harass the guy or better yet, let him file for reimbursement for his travel and time spent dealing with this mess😉
And he shouldn't even have to worry about interest payments either he can always tell a different version of events when he stands before the judge😉
As for all this moral high ground stuff, it doesn't move me... money is money
If a company makes an erroneous payment, that's a mistake made by someone within the firm, and it's their responsibility to fix the payroll issue...
There is no such thing as forgiving debt. This isn't a DUI where a judge might show mercy on a sentence. In these types of civil disputes, the court doesn't just waive anything. Being broke isn't a valid excuse. The judge is simply going to ask if there was a legal basis for acquiring $1000 and that’s the end of it. It's not about who made mistakes, who paid whom, or who was rude versus polite. If you lose the suit, you'll face $1000 plus attorney fees and interest, leading straight to another garnishment. qwer explained this perfectly.
Gregory Nelson6 said:My real question is this: is there anyone left in America who can actually stand up to people like Zvonimir Baletić and Đuro Medić? Or are we just stuck being crushed by the outdated theories of old-school socialist economists? In other words, are we doomed to hit a brick wall in slow motion—the very same wall these guys crawled out of like some kind of economic vampires?
The better you are at economics, the less likely you are to have anything to do with academia after graduation. Truly talented economists stir up trouble on campus, and nobody wants them around. You simply learn that it is much better to stay far away from universities and the mainstream media...
What is investment Think of it as grabbing an asset or something specific with the goal of seeing it pay you back later or grow in value down the road. In an economic sense, an investment is basically buying stuff you don't use up right now, but instead use later to build up some serious wealth. When we're talking about things in the financial sense, an investment is a money-based asset you pick up because you expect it to either cough up some income later or jump up in price so you can flip it for a profit.
Investopedia explains investment... Building out a massive manufacturing plant to churn out products, or even the money you sink into getting a degree at a place like Harvard or a state university, are both classic examples of investments in an economic sense.
In the financial sense, investments include things like picking up bonds, stocks, or Real Estate.
Just a heads-up though—don't go mixing up "making an investment" with just straight-up speculating. Investing usually involves the creation of wealth, whereas speculating is more of a zero-sum game where no new wealth actually gets made. Even if speculators think they've done their homework, most people wouldn't call what they're doing traditional investing.
Right under that definition on Investopedia, you'll find
Investopedia explains Real Estate and you have Exploring Real Estate Investments
If you don't own your own apartment or house, you basically have two choices: live on the streets or pay, say, $667 a month for a rental. When you invest in buying your own place, you effectively generate an income of $667 per month that you pay to yourself... plus there is the long-term appreciation of the property. You might have bought it for $200 per square foot, and now it's worth $250.
Andrew Booth29 said:We have to dial back the spending—plain and simple—because we’re burning through resources way faster than we’re actually producing them. This kind of imbalance can't just carry on indefinitely. I mean, isn't that pretty obvious? And now everyone is out there dreaming up this fantasy version of a recession where consumption stays high. But what kind of recession would that even be if you don't actually feel the squeeze?
Maria Thomas48 said:So, look, your proof is brilliant, really. It’s not just okay. But here’s the thing—it falls apart completely when you apply it to a hypothetical extreme case. It just sinks.
Imagine if the government was run by an automated computer system and there was only one person left in the entire country. It would be a strange setup. If that one person earned any income, the state would automatically record that as an expense on its books. And if that person managed to charge for services—say, maintaining the very computer running the show—to turn a profit, then the state, being governed by that machine, would inevitably have to run a deficit. Just a mathematical certainty.
Trying to relativize things like this is just a way to cloud the obvious facts. It’s basically just an attempt to beat around the bush after making clear mistakes, spinning empty words instead of just admitting they were wrong.
That’s all there is to it.
These formulas apply to every single country. You really think everyone is just being foolish and taking out foreign loans to cover a state deficit? It seems pretty obvious to me. If you can only generate profit through a budget deficit, then it doesn't matter how much profit you actually make. You still have to take out a loan just to turn that profit into actual cash. And then, obviously, you need that cash just to pay back the previous deficit plus the interest.
If you don't believe this, that's on you. Honestly, if I were running a major bank, of course I’d be all for the idea of financing the federal deficit through credit. It's just good business. You basically secure a client for life—someone who, regardless of how much profit they turn in down the road, will never actually be able to pay back what they borrowed. And if that credit is issued through secondary money printing? Even better. The satisfaction is huge. Most of the money used for that loan is essentially printed out of thin air, so it doesn't actually cost the bank any real capital.
The bottom line is pretty simple. When you're looking at paying off foreign debt used to cover a budget deficit, you really only have two ways out. You either sell off assets, or you generate enough of a surplus through trade to balance the scales. That's just how it works. If you just look at the math, it’s pretty clear that the entire deficit was essentially swallowed up by corporate profits. If we actually wanted to pay down the national debt, every single entity involved would have to operate at a loss—specifically, a loss equal to whatever the repayment installment is. That creates a bit of a paradox, doesn't it? It implies that for global profitability to stay afloat, the new budget deficit actually has to be larger than last year's just to balance things out. Now, if the government had the option to settle its debts through commodities or goods instead of cash, that could act as a source of surplus. Then, theoretically, this whole scenario becomes possible to execute.
It gets even worse when you realize most countries are already following the American model for financing their deficits. It’s probably all happening under the thumb of those monetary wizards.
So, at the end of the day, we're all just living on one isolated Earth. My formulas apply here 100%. It really comes down to whether one person wins only because someone else loses—meaning the total profit equals zero and there's no actual increase in real money value. From what I can see, that isn't how it works. There has to be some kind of deficit generator somewhere out there, something pumping new money into the system in exchange for profit. If that actually exists, I don't see why we wouldn't want to grab a little slice of that cake ourselves. Just a tiny bit, nothing noticeable. What's a few million souls compared to six billion?
The argument goes like this: we can't shake this debt unless we sell off assets to foreigners and generate a massive trade surplus. But honestly, that doesn't solve anything long-term. Not unless we start running a trade surplus that actually outweighs our budget deficit, or—which is clearly the smarter move—we start tackling the deficit through primary issuance (specifically targeted for certain things). That second option makes more sense. It would mean the entire nation's profit aligns with the trade surplus. Because at the end of the day, the internal profit balance equals the budget deficit. I just wonder how realistic that is when you have millions of retirees to account for.
Right now, a smart move might be introducing a secret issuance of dollars. Just printing new money from new credit, and keeping it going for years until the debts are cleared. We’d just have to manage for 14 years without any primary issuance to avoid major shocks. The economy would probably go through the wringer, though. People might actually be able to pay back their loans, and then we'd have a happy ending. The other choice is to keep pretending there isn't a problem that can't be solved by simply hiking taxes (looking at you, Treasury officials) and praying to God that everything holds together before it all hits the fan.
The mathematical Jednadzba shows this. Any economist can believe whatever they want is true, but that's just opinion. My goal isn't to change anyone's mind, I just want to point out that the math itself proves we're still doing this all wrong.
So according to you, Zimbabwe should just be bursting with profits right now instead of dealing with hyperinflation, starvation, and 94% unemployment?