The Financial System and Money Supply
in Banking, Insurance & Loans ·
Maria Thomas48 said:Well, you wanted to relativize values. That’s just blurring the logic. So I took that direction. You can compare two products based on worker productivity. But even then, you still have to account for worker expertise and the capital tied up in production. I could have added all that too, but I left you some room to continue blurring things.
Regarding expertise. How can anyone claim to be an expert if they can't even convey their knowledge in a basic way to someone else? Secondly. Do you really think you'll be able to fix a remote control just by studying the basics of electrical engineering, digital integrated circuits, microprocessors, electrochemical power sources, and electromaterial technology? You'd need similar literature if you wanted to fix a radio, a blender, or anything else. Basically, you need to be an expert in a forest of literature—theory—combined with a certain amount of practice—before you can tell a layman what to do to actually solve a problem.
The topic is actually quite serious. Money is one of the pillars of capitalism and is central to economic events. If we don't understand where new money comes from and why, how can we ever fully grasp other economic laws? Telling someone they have no clue without providing a real answer is pretty unprofessional.
Math is an exact science, and economics uses math as a tool. Just like physics. In physics, you can even prove that if you know an object's velocity, there's a specific uncertainty in its position, and vice versa. You know, the Uncertainty Principle. However, if you want to say I have no idea or that something isn't right, then disprove the mathematical claims like Somied did. Okay, I messed up a little because I didn't spot his error immediately. And it was obvious. Because once you plugged in the wrong solution, the equations just looked wrong.
Besides, I limited the scope to proving the necessity of money inflow and, if no one refutes the evidence with more accurate equations, proving that the current moves in the US are leading the country toward ruin. Or maybe we disagree on that too. Perhaps this situation and whatever follows in the coming years is exactly what we need.
Look, people have been arguing for 18 months now about whether or not to devalue the currency. The answer is clearly visible in my evidence. There would be money, and I wouldn't devalue, if everyone were actually producing things (working instead of just importing and trading) and if precise, earmarked issuance of dollars occurred through budget deficits specifically for the state's cumulative profit. And of course, if there wasn't all this massive profit created by sheer greed for money. You see new evidence of that greed every single week. And then people act surprised at what others come up with to grab cash without doing any actual work.🙏
I asked a simple question. It couldn't have been any more straightforward than that. I wasn't interested in worker productivity, skill levels, or capital investment. My only question was whether both families actually benefited from the trade they conducted. If there were no profit in it, they certainly wouldn't have made the exchange. One family wouldn't trade if it meant taking a loss. As far as I'm concerned, buying a bushel of apples for... $1.75 I’m passing on them; I wouldn't buy them if I were anyone else. If I eventually decide to pick up a pound of apples, then that pound of apples will be worth more to me than... $1.75 Just like the merchant says... $1.75 It is worth more than his bushel of apples... we both stand to gain from this exchange...
Maria Thomas48 said:Well, you wanted to relativize values. That’s just blurring the logic. So I took that direction. You can compare two products based on worker productivity. But even then, you still have to account for worker expertise and the capital tied up in production. I could have added all that too, but I left you some room to continue blurring things.
Regarding expertise. How can anyone claim to be an expert if they can't even convey their knowledge in a basic way to someone else? Secondly. Do you really think you'll be able to fix a remote control just by studying the basics of electrical engineering, digital integrated circuits, microprocessors, electrochemical power sources, and electromaterial technology? You'd need similar literature if you wanted to fix a radio, a blender, or anything else. Basically, you need to be an expert in a forest of literature—theory—combined with a certain amount of practice—before you can tell a layman what to do to actually solve a problem.
The topic is actually quite serious. Money is one of the pillars of capitalism and is central to economic events. If we don't understand where new money comes from and why, how can we ever fully grasp other economic laws? Telling someone they have no clue without providing a real answer is pretty unprofessional.
Math is an exact science, and economics uses math as a tool. Just like physics. In physics, you can even prove that if you know an object's velocity, there's a specific uncertainty in its position, and vice versa. You know, the Uncertainty Principle. However, if you want to say I have no idea or that something isn't right, then disprove the mathematical claims like Somied did. Okay, I messed up a little because I didn't spot his error immediately. And it was obvious. Because once you plugged in the wrong solution, the equations just looked wrong.
Besides, I limited the scope to proving the necessity of money inflow and, if no one refutes the evidence with more accurate equations, proving that the current moves in the US are leading the country toward ruin. Or maybe we disagree on that too. Perhaps this situation and whatever follows in the coming years is exactly what we need.
Look, people have been arguing for 18 months now about whether or not to devalue the currency. The answer is clearly visible in my evidence. There would be money, and I wouldn't devalue, if everyone were actually producing things (working instead of just importing and trading) and if precise, earmarked issuance of dollars occurred through budget deficits specifically for the state's cumulative profit. And of course, if there wasn't all this massive profit created by sheer greed for money. You see new evidence of that greed every single week. And then people act surprised at what others come up with to grab cash without doing any actual work.🙏
Do you really expect people on this forum to download thousands of pages of study material and hundreds of hours of lectures into your head instantly? Not only that, but after everyone has kindly explained that trading—outside of rare cases like options, futures, or gambling—is essentially a zero-sum game where one person loses just so another can win... you still insist on ignoring everything. You trip up on the very first lesson of supply and demand from an intro economics textbook, yet you claim you're ready to tackle macroeconomics and the Federal Reserve...
Maria Thomas48 said:Well, you wanted to relativize values. That’s just blurring the logic. So I took that direction. You can compare two products based on worker productivity. But even then, you still have to account for worker expertise and the capital tied up in production. I could have added all that too, but I left you some room to continue blurring things.
Regarding expertise. How can anyone claim to be an expert if they can't even convey their knowledge in a basic way to someone else? Secondly. Do you really think you'll be able to fix a remote control just by studying the basics of electrical engineering, digital integrated circuits, microprocessors, electrochemical power sources, and electromaterial technology? You'd need similar literature if you wanted to fix a radio, a blender, or anything else. Basically, you need to be an expert in a forest of literature—theory—combined with a certain amount of practice—before you can tell a layman what to do to actually solve a problem.
The topic is actually quite serious. Money is one of the pillars of capitalism and is central to economic events. If we don't understand where new money comes from and why, how can we ever fully grasp other economic laws? Telling someone they have no clue without providing a real answer is pretty unprofessional.
Math is an exact science, and economics uses math as a tool. Just like physics. In physics, you can even prove that if you know an object's velocity, there's a specific uncertainty in its position, and vice versa. You know, the Uncertainty Principle. However, if you want to say I have no idea or that something isn't right, then disprove the mathematical claims like Somied did. Okay, I messed up a little because I didn't spot his error immediately. And it was obvious. Because once you plugged in the wrong solution, the equations just looked wrong.
Besides, I limited the scope to proving the necessity of money inflow and, if no one refutes the evidence with more accurate equations, proving that the current moves in the US are leading the country toward ruin. Or maybe we disagree on that too. Perhaps this situation and whatever follows in the coming years is exactly what we need.
Look, people have been arguing for 18 months now about whether or not to devalue the currency. The answer is clearly visible in my evidence. There would be money, and I wouldn't devalue, if everyone were actually producing things (working instead of just importing and trading) and if precise, earmarked issuance of dollars occurred through budget deficits specifically for the state's cumulative profit. And of course, if there wasn't all this massive profit created by sheer greed for money. You see new evidence of that greed every single week. And then people act surprised at what others come up with to grab cash without doing any actual work.🙏
The Federal Reserve handles primary money issuance through open market operations involving securities. Secondary issuance occurs via banks using the money multiplier. Imagine the Federal Reserve injects $333 and sets the reserve requirement at 20%. That cash ends up in a JP Morgan Chase account where you deposit $333. JP Morgan Chase takes your $333, $67 and holds them as required reserves, then issues $267 in credit to someone else. In this way, we turn our initial $333 into 1,800... and as banks continue this cycle, we eventually reach $1667 in total money supply.
Maria Thomas48 said:Well, you wanted to relativize values. That’s just blurring the logic. So I took that direction. You can compare two products based on worker productivity. But even then, you still have to account for worker expertise and the capital tied up in production. I could have added all that too, but I left you some room to continue blurring things.
Regarding expertise. How can anyone claim to be an expert if they can't even convey their knowledge in a basic way to someone else? Secondly. Do you really think you'll be able to fix a remote control just by studying the basics of electrical engineering, digital integrated circuits, microprocessors, electrochemical power sources, and electromaterial technology? You'd need similar literature if you wanted to fix a radio, a blender, or anything else. Basically, you need to be an expert in a forest of literature—theory—combined with a certain amount of practice—before you can tell a layman what to do to actually solve a problem.
The topic is actually quite serious. Money is one of the pillars of capitalism and is central to economic events. If we don't understand where new money comes from and why, how can we ever fully grasp other economic laws? Telling someone they have no clue without providing a real answer is pretty unprofessional.
Math is an exact science, and economics uses math as a tool. Just like physics. In physics, you can even prove that if you know an object's velocity, there's a specific uncertainty in its position, and vice versa. You know, the Uncertainty Principle. However, if you want to say I have no idea or that something isn't right, then disprove the mathematical claims like Somied did. Okay, I messed up a little because I didn't spot his error immediately. And it was obvious. Because once you plugged in the wrong solution, the equations just looked wrong.
Besides, I limited the scope to proving the necessity of money inflow and, if no one refutes the evidence with more accurate equations, proving that the current moves in the US are leading the country toward ruin. Or maybe we disagree on that too. Perhaps this situation and whatever follows in the coming years is exactly what we need.
Look, people have been arguing for 18 months now about whether or not to devalue the currency. The answer is clearly visible in my evidence. There would be money, and I wouldn't devalue, if everyone were actually producing things (working instead of just importing and trading) and if precise, earmarked issuance of dollars occurred through budget deficits specifically for the state's cumulative profit. And of course, if there wasn't all this massive profit created by sheer greed for money. You see new evidence of that greed every single week. And then people act surprised at what others come up with to grab cash without doing any actual work.🙏
One must know how to apply mathematics within economics. When you write an identity—an equation—it must actually make sense. If you make an assumption, it must be logical. You cannot simply write banana + egg = car and try to prove that a banana equals a car minus an egg.