Posts by crimsonfalcon10

Matthew Patel12 said:Listen, crimsonfalcon10, non-credit money isn't subject to inflation, because inflation is an inherent necessity when dealing with credit-based currency. You really ought to re-read my previous point more carefully. If supply stands at 110 and demand sits at 100, then k = (110 - 100)/100 = 10/100 = 1/10 = 0.1, which equals 10%.

Supply isn't the issue here... it's the demand, which drops because people start saving... surely you've heard of the paradox of thrift? In your system, savings have to be massive since there's no credit available...🤣 that is exactly what ruins your entire model...

Please include savings in your formula...

When will you two finally grasp this? We have already proven that a non-credit-based system simply cannot survive. A non-credit system equals hyperinflation! A credit-based system is the only one capable of functioning. Granted, during certain moments of crisis, interventions by the Federal Reserve are necessary to increase the money supply and offset the impact of falling velocity. Naturally, this applies only to major economies—take China or the EU, for instance. For smaller economies like those in parts of Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, that doesn't hold true. We have to learn how to produce competitive goods. We must know how to direct the circulation of dollars and euros toward our own markets, and without a competitive product, that is impossible. The US stands at an advantage compared to many other nations; we have massive industries that bring in billions annually (that is just one example of shifting money circulation toward our domestic economy). This is why the US remains more advanced than neighboring countries that would otherwise have to make up that difference through manufacturing alone.

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, I find myself repeating this point indefinitely, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.
The precise volume of non-credit money is always determined by a specific formula:
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ;
For instance, if supply equals 110 and demand equals 100.
k = (110 - 100)/100 = 10/100 = 1/10 = 0.1 = 10%.
If you issue 10% non-credit money, 5% will be directed toward boosting production, while the remaining 5% compensates for the deceleration in the velocity of money. Every single unit produced will be sold, including any unsold inventory that lingered simply because the circulation of money slowed down. This entire process occurs with prices remaining perfectly stable. In other words, there is no inflation.

Try plugging some actual numbers into your system... if someone pulls 15% of the GDP out as savings, you can't just make up for it with non-credit money... a mere 5% injection would vanish instantly because it wouldn't cover all the cash being pulled out through savings... the whole system would run dry in a heartbeat if you just pumped 5% more cash into it...

The advantage of a credit-based system is that money doesn't just sit under a mattress... once you put your money in a bank, they immediately lend it out to someone else... so savings don't pull money out of circulation like they do in your system... which creates a massive risk of inflation...

In a credit system, you also have the choice to live without debt... you can choose to take a loan and continue investing that capital to earn even more... or you can choose to blow the loan on something stupid... and that's where the credit system fails—when people waste money on nonsense... but that's your own fault... you have the first two options available, so there really shouldn't be an issue...

Maria Thomas48 said:I feel like this is such a typical American approach to solving problems. We run into a mess, we know exactly why it happened, and then—get this—we decide we deserve it. It's like we actively wish for things to go wrong. We should be aiming for better. I don't know about you guys, but I don't have any desire to become obscenely rich. Once your needs are met, having more wealth doesn't really matter much.

I'd tell crimsonfalcon10 to stop scaring people with talk of hyperinflation. That kind of logic is like arguing we should stop using fire because of forest fires, or stop taking medicine because of overdoses. It’s silly. When money is printed in ways nobody truly understands, anything can happen.

And how can economic science even function without addressing the calculation of non-credit money issuance? I've brought this up before, but it seems like everyone just ignores it. To me, that omission casts a massive shadow over what we call "economics" as a science today.

Best,

sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

I am scaring no one... I am simply using pure mathematics, just like you... besides, take a look at the link below...

http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6...itnisustav.jpg

The simulation assumes annual savings of 15% of GDP... we have already calculated this in previous posts since there is no credit in this system and everyone must save... the simulation uses a 3% annual GDP growth rate... we also considered the GDP increase if only 10% of those savings were reintroduced into circulation and what the resulting GDP would be... in that scenario, dividing that 10% of GDP by the standard GDP (which wouldn't account for the return of savings to circulation) gives us the inflation risk...

One solution to make this system work without inflation would be to establish a call center... when someone wants to spend part of their savings to buy a television, they would need to call that center so the government can pull that specific amount of money out of circulation at that moment... that way, his purchase of a television won't trigger inflation... 😂

Matthew Patel12 said:Ashley Barnes9, a non-credit monetary system fundamentally discourages malice and nudges people toward virtue. Once a programmable, non-credit currency is implemented here in the States, you will witness the reality of this shift firsthand. Consumer psychology won't be able to fight against it. Production will expand while the velocity of money slows down, and that is simply how it will always function. Consequently, people will become increasingly content and, ultimately, better versions of themselves.

Ha! In that little utopia of yours, you'd need a banknote with twelve zeros just to buy a loaf of bread... 🤣 I don't think you could even fit that many digits on a bill... if you wanted to buy a car, you'd practically need a flatbed truck just to transport the payment... 😂 Well, at least you'd be safe from thieves... if someone tried to rob you, they'd need a fleet of tow trucks to haul away all that cash... you couldn't exactly run off with it easily...

Matthew Patel12 said:John Doe, the US pulled its liquidity from the market, effectively engineering this crisis. It’s a mess that has left all of Europe and anyone blindly following the IMF's playbook scrambling to catch up. Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, and Argentina remain remarkably insulated from this particular fallout. We have a duty to advocate for non-credit money until the system finally shifts. If we continue to push credit-based money, we are merely acting as agents for a global establishment that is clearly nearing its expiration date. You, however, continue to promote credit money. The logical progression requires non-credit money first—the actual creation of wealth—followed by the subsequent stages of saving and lending the capital that has entered circulation as a gift to the economy. I am holding out hope that this transition occurs within the next two years. This proposal hasn't just appeared overnight; it has been on the table for over a year now. It will persist, it will spread, and eventually, it will be embraced.

Here is that link one more time...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...st/h6hist1.txt

Where is this withdrawal of cash...?

And here is a formula for you...

M x V = GDP

M = money supply (M1)

V = velocity of money (V = f(x,y,z, consumer psychology, interest rates, etc.))

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/374...ityofmoney.jpg

Matthew Patel12 said:crimsonfalcon10, I have already stated that k equals 5% and k equals 18%; those are the actual figures. I don't live in America, nor do I rely on your specific press outlets, but I assume your domestic demand has plummeted by 25% or 30%. This implies you require an additional 25% to 30% in non-credit money. A crisis occurs when a government or the Federal Reserve pulls 20% of the money supply out of circulation for no discernible reason. I know this to be true in America because it is the standard behavior for any nation operating on credit-based currency. First, the USA pulled 18% of its money supply out of circulation, followed closely by the European Union. When their central banks faced liquidity shortages, they began draining capital from the periphery—places like smaller nations—which causes their exchange rates against the dollar to collapse and worsens the overall situation. It is why we say that when the USA sneezes, Europe catches a cold, and we end up with pneumonia. In 1929, the USA pulled 30% of the money supply out of circulation, which is precisely what triggered the global crisis. Now, money is being pumped back into the system to prevent another collapse, yet they are injecting far more credit money than the necessary non-credit money. This entire crisis was born from the explosion of mortgage debt. Had those loans simply been written off, there would be no crisis at all. China is currently writing off 45% of its loans, which is why their prices remain 45% lower than the rest of the world. The USA cannot handle the competition from China, but if the USA were to write off 90% of its debt, its prices would actually drop below those of the Chinese. These are the realistic figures I am presenting. As long as you remain preoccupied with mere credits, you will never grasp a single real number. Your figures are purely nominal, which is just another way of saying they are false.

When the USA pulled 18%... the issue here is that most of our consumption is imported... withdrawing money from circulation was done to protect the exchange rate... if the rate collapsed... there would be a massive revolt from people holding foreign currency loans... if they printed money, the exchange rate would sink even further... the Federal Reserve's job is to maintain price stability...

Matthew Patel12 said:Brian Nelson4, the formula I’ve laid out would have maintained the dollar at a perfectly stable value for the last two centuries. We wouldn't be dealing with inflation or deflation; instead, the dollar would retain its real value indefinitely. What matters most is the necessary increase in the money supply (dM), defined by the money growth rate (k) and the total money supply (M).
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ;
When supply and demand reach equilibrium, k equals zero, meaning no new money is required. For k to remain positive, supply must exceed demand. Consider a scenario where k is 5%, or perhaps 12%, similar to the current trajectory in China. This surplus occurs because new goods have been produced or because demand has dipped, leaving inventory unsold. By applying this formula, all goods would be sold at unchanging prices. One needs only to master this single equation; nothing else is required. If k falls below zero, money must be withdrawn from circulation, though in the long run, the global money supply is perpetually expanding. An increasing money supply is a constant necessity. Should we ever find ourselves needing to withdraw money from the system, it will serve as a definitive sign that the world has begun its descent into ruin.

Will you finally plug some actual numbers into your system? Under your model, even with moderate GDP growth, the risk of inflation would skyrocket exponentially... which has been mathematically proven. Every single instance of money printing in the world has caused inflation... and now you want to implement hyper-printing of cash and think it won't trigger inflation? 😉

2 nostrađurus

Take a look at this data table...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...st/h6hist1.txt

The growth of the M1 money supply over the years... if you followed that old-school logic, wouldn't we just multiply the current M1 by the number of years in the system? Now we’re facing issues because M1 is already ten times smaller than the GDP... can you even imagine the chaos if M1 were ten times larger than the GDP based on those outdated principles?

Matthew Patel12 said:user23, I have already stated my position: if money is being stashed away in a sock, I will continue to distribute funds. However, the moment that "sock money" enters circulation, I am seizing it immediately to bolster the budget surplus. No one bothers hiding cash under a mattress if they know it’s effectively vanished forever. No one would ever trigger inflation on my watch, because I will always pull any excess liquidity out of the system. The amount of money in circulation should be precisely calibrated to maintain zero inflation. It is a matter of absolute simplicity. If new capital is distributed as a gift, there are no complications. The crisis we face today exists because new money is being issued as credit. That simply cannot happen. New money must exist solely as a gift. There will be enough of it to facilitate saving and lending, though those pursuits are of no concern to me, nor will they be of interest to you.

You don't even grasp what you're talking about... you can only withdraw money once it's already circulating... once it finds its way back to you... by the time that happens, inflation has already hit... you're just reacting too late to pull the cash out...

If corporate profits represent 5% of GDP, we are looking at $16.5 billion annually... since there are no credits in this system, every single employee has to save up to buy a house or an apartment... in the US, there are roughly 150 million workers and the average salary is $1667, making that $90 billion annually... if citizens used to use their paychecks for housing loans, now they'll have to save that exact amount instead... which means we're looking at an additional $30 billion in savings per year... and that doesn't even account for retirees... whose savings shouldn't be ignored either... which means $46.5 billion is being pulled out of circulation every year... essentially, you are injecting $46.5 billion into the system annually... if just 10 percent of those savings hits the market during Christmas in the first year, you'd trigger 10% inflation... by the second year, when savings reach $90 billion, 10% of that value would cause 20% inflation... after ten years, with savings totaling $450 billion and only needing $45 billion for circulation, if just 10% of that total flows into the economy, you're facing 100% inflation... not to mention how much crime would skyrocket in such a system... everyone knows people stash cash under the mattress... why work at all when you could just rob your neighbors?

🤣

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...

The idea was that 5% of GDP represents corporate profits being diverted into savings... just look at the data from 2008 where profit sat at 16.3% after accounting for losses... which means actual earnings for healthy companies are even higher... since that figure is dragged down by underperforming businesses... under this current system, all that profit ends up tucked away under a mattress... and after a few years, all that accumulated cash becomes a ticking time bomb, triggering runaway inflation once it finally hits circulation...

Heh... you all seem to be overlooking one thing about this new system: there’s no credit available... if a machine breaks down on the factory floor, you can't just walk into Chase and pull out a loan for repairs... everything has to be budgeted upfront... which means my estimate of 5% of circulating cash is actually being way too conservative... 🙂

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, you seem to misunderstand; the Stoletov system isn't some fleeting monthly trend, it is designed for permanence. Think of GDP as the sum of all market prices. If you take GDP and subtract costs, you arrive at profit. Income stands as the primary figure. When you subtract GDP from that income, what remains is consumer surplus. Non-credit money essentially equals the combination of profit and consumer surplus. While some might choose to hoard cash in a sock under their bed, I issue non-credit money to satisfy social needs and human requirements. Should someone decide to pull that cash out of their sock, I simply absorb those funds as a budget surplus. The amount of money left in circulation is strictly calibrated to prevent inflation. Speculators will learn their lesson quickly enough; speculation will cease to exist entirely. By utilizing three social accounts—income, prices, and costs—I have effectively replaced Nostradamus’s theory regarding the three deficits. However, both theories yield the exact same result: non-credit money. This means they are fundamentally identical, though I maintain that my approach is significantly more straightforward.

Mr. Patel, isn't it speculative to spend 10 percent of a windfall that, under your system, would trigger 30 percent inflation in ten years or 60 percent after twenty? I think it's perfectly clear to everyone now just how ridiculous this idea really is...

Robert Vaughn10 said:Sure, the standard defense for this setup is that interest rewards savers. On paper, it sounds fine. But let’s be real: this is just various forms of paper manipulation. The sheer volume of credit being issued means the money typed into a ledger somewhere is impossible to pay back. That’s where Nostradamus is right. The ratio is simply too bloated to close the loop. Typing numbers into a computer isn't "saving" anything. We aren't defending savers here; we are calling out manipulation that steals from them by diluting their value. We need to cut off the ability to just conjure numbers out of thin air.😁

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! 🤣

Robert Vaughn10 said:Saving is mandatory, regardless of whether interest rates exist or not. Interest is nothing more than a noose around the neck of the economy, and we are seeing that clearly now. In a system backed by precious metals, prices drop, excesses are eliminated, and saving actually makes sense. How do you jumpstart growth? You roll up your sleeves and produce more. That drives prices down and purchasing power up. The beauty of a tangible economy is that it forces productivity; there's no room for fluff, and if something is off, the alarm sounds immediately. On the flip side, it guarantees stability and falling prices alongside higher productivity.
That means lower wages initially—sacrifice, sure—but it also prevents manipulation.
The problem is people are too soft for that, which is why triggering that kind of growth is so difficult. But once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop, and purchasing power climbs steadily.
The formula is simple: work, more work, then a better standard of living, followed by more work again.
Printing paper, manipulating the currency through endless schemes, and clear-cutting forests—all of that needs to be left in the past.

There is a massive difference between keeping money in a bank to earn interest and stashing cash under a mattress, which is what happens in a non-credit system... Let's wait for Mr. Century's answer regarding what percentage of the US GDP he predicts will go toward profit in his system, and then things will be much clearer...

Matthew Patel12 said:Listen, crimsonfalcon10, my formula doesn't just address a single issue; it addresses everything. You can't underestimate China, as they have ascended to become the most dominant industrial powerhouse on the planet. Their workers are seeing substantial wages now, a far cry from the meager earnings of the recent past. There is virtually no distinction between gross and net income, which implies that China operates without the burden of taxes or crippling debt. Because their prices sit roughly 45% lower than global averages, they maintain an edge over everyone else. Don't bother trying to lecture me on the sheer scale of China. Any small nation, whether it's a place like Ohio or a territory like Mexico, can claim size; that isn't a unique feat. Anyone can be big.

Let's look at it this way... if you were an entrepreneur operating under this non-credit money system... what would you consider a satisfying profit margin? Since there are no loans, you have to secure the capital for new machinery and maintenance yourself... what percentage would you need to cover all that? What is your assumption regarding the average worker's savings in this system... say, as a percentage of revenue? Currently, people have to save up just to invest in anything... or to put it simply... what share of the GDP should profit occupy for this new system to remain stable without causing total economic disruption?☕

Maria Thomas48 said:I'll be polite and say I just stick to the reduced equality of the three deficits, which is standard and undisputed in economics. Since you can't disprove that equality, everything else you say is just a fairy tale for the naive.

I laid out examples showing why it's correct. Then you just write that it's been disproven. By what? Just a bunch of words? Prove it with math.

There’s a gap in economic knowledge here, and we all know why. It's to hide the fraud. And when I uncover it using math, you refuse to believe it. That's on you. Either prove with math that I'm wrong, or admit you haven't a clue.

I read this thread from the very beginning and saw you jumping in constantly. Sometimes you were right, sure, but you never once backed it up with actual math. Take that step and prove you're an expert.

You're just confusing other people on the forum with amateur attacks. Even though I'm a layman regarding economics and don't know everything, you can't just talk me around with words. You need concrete mathematical proof to convince me.

I know it's silly for me to start this thread since I'm not an economist, but it makes sense because economists haven't learned what they actually need to. This should be a prompt for economists to fill the gaps in their knowledge so we can finally discuss solving the crisis instead of just endlessly arguing with empty arguments.

Regards

Just one question... how exactly do you plan to solve things through a non-credit system? How will that boost American exports? How will it improve the standard of living for the average American citizen? How will you prevent the circulation of money within the system from slowing down? How will you curb excessive inflation? How will you determine fair prices for new products? How will you combat product shortages in the market? Or how will you deal with a surplus? I fear that when you truly contemplate these questions... you will realize that your proposed system is even more flawed than the credit-based one... your formulas may be accurate, but they solve nothing... they apply to perhaps one out of a thousand possible scenarios... the real question is how the system will handle the other 999 possibilities... how will this system defend itself against specific economic shocks?

By removing interest, you have essentially tied one hand behind your back while trying to steer the economy... if it is hard enough to steer with two hands, what do you think it is like with only one?

It is going to take a lot more time before you truly understand economics... ☕

Maria Thomas48 said:But how do you plan to tackle inflation? You know, the whole consequence of having massive amounts of cash circulating in the economy that keeps growing by the day. You can't just write off debt like it doesn't exist.

And how are you going to handle paying off debts when bank profits from interest rates are hovering near 7% of the GDP and showing no signs of slowing down?

Then there's the issue of the deficit spenders. Tourism profits aren't enough to satisfy the appetite of domestic profiteers, and those guys make their money off the losers. You can't just eliminate the loss-makers. New ones will always pop up until you've basically gutted the entire economy. The fact that these three deficits are essentially equal proves that point.

Best,

What's the issue here? First, we have to balance the trade deficit... which means cutting imports. The easiest way to do that? Pivot consumers toward American-made products. By shifting demand to domestic goods, sales for American companies rise. That growth allows for more investment in R&D, which lowers production costs. Once those costs drop, we become hyper-competitive in the global export market, which ultimately drives up exports and boosts the GDP. 😉

Oh, one more thing... we should bring all the diaspora retirees back to the States... then you'll see how quickly we climb out of this crisis...

Ashley Barnes9 said:The analysis is generally on point, and it's all pretty easy to verify. The Federal Reserve publishes annual reports for commercial banks right on their website ( http://www.federalreserve.gov )

And there it clearly shows that total interest income in 2009 hit $22.8 billion, while fee and commission income was $4.3 billion, plus another $3.4 billion in other non-interest income. That’s over $30 billion being sucked up by the banking system. Only a small fraction of that money actually flows back into the economy through interest payments or wages for American citizens; the rest just leaves the country...

The media loves to make a big deal out of how bank profits are shrinking, but they conveniently gloss over the details that prove the banking system gets more expensive for us every single year.

Sure, profits might be down, but that's because banks jacked up interest rates first, and then bumped up their loan loss provisions—which exceeded $3.5 billion last year. And that $3.5 billion? They took it straight from our pockets to set aside just in case...

The next big heist happens through interest payments made on loans and deposits to parent companies (those big international banks), which exceeds $3 billion. On top of that, pure profit from fees and commissions is also around $3 billion, similar to the gains from other items like currency exchange, brokerage services, derivatives sales, and so on.

Both the media and political circles stay silent about this, so you're absolutely right when you say: "We need to expose this banking-political-economic-media scam."
because the news outlets that should be reporting on this either ignore it entirely or just toss out dry statistics without any actual context.

But luckily, there are some of us who aren't afraid to talk about these kinds of taboo subjects...

greeting

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:Every bit of cash the Federal Reserve buys back can basically be viewed as a byproduct of foreign subsidies, outside investment, and exports—specifically that portion of export revenue that actually stays in the hands of citizens. You could look at it as an extra injection of liquidity, assuming we weren't constantly losing money through foreign investments, imports, or pensions being paid out to people abroad. It’s worth noting that even if our balance of payments with the rest of the world stayed in the black, that money still has a credit-based origin. Some estimates suggest that’s upwards of 95%. Maybe having that surplus would let us pay down our debt, but it would just create a massive deficit elsewhere, leading to even deeper debt held by some other foreign nation. It really makes you wonder how much debt those countries can actually shoulder before they hit a breaking point and collapse. Anyway, I heard somewhere that banks are pulling in about $20 billion a year just from interest alone. When you compare that to a GDP of around $300 billion, it seems like way too much to actually be sustainable.

Because a positive trade balance basically just shifts the burden of debt repayment onto other countries—who, let’s be honest, are also stuck without any real solutions—I’ve been thinking about this. My take is that the government needs to be able to function financially with an eye toward actual prosperity, which means maintaining a balanced trade account. You know, where imports are offset by exports. If you look at it that way, the whole "three deficits" equality gets simplified down to a single equation (minus the credit side):

The state budget deficit? It’s basically just the private sector's profit. Think about it. When the government runs a deficit, that money has to come from somewhere. It flows out of Washington, D.C., and straight into the hands of businesses and individuals. So, if the federal government is in the red, the private sector is essentially seeing that as a surplus. It’s a zero-sum game, really. One side's loss is the other side's gain. Simple math, even if people like to make it complicated.

I don’t even know how many times I’ve tried to post this, but it just won't stick. Looking at the math, it’s pretty clear that everything the government invests goes straight into profit margins, and when it comes time to pay it back, all that realized profit has to be sucked out—plus interest. It creates a massive cash deficit in terms of interest alone. Basically, the state invests, people work hard to earn money, and then they’re forced to hand it all back along with extra interest on top. It means their labor couldn't actually be converted into liquid profit. If we want to claim we’re a capitalist nation, you have to be able to accumulate capital, right? But practically speaking, this kind of credit only hands the community a pile of debt. We got the goods and services, sure, but our hard work didn't yield profit; it yielded a loss equal to the interest payments if we ever actually managed to settle the loan. It’s pure masochism. The government can't pull a cash profit from an investment because that interest has to come from the initial pool of money—and since the trade balance is hitting zero, there’s less and less of that money left. So, it's obvious why Davor Šuker has to keep taking out new loans.

Everything would look completely different if we were working with non-credit money. First off, you wouldn't be dealing with principal debt, and second, there wouldn't be any interest hanging over your head. The benefits for the community would be massive. It basically turns human labor into actual savings, which can then just be funneled straight back into new investments. Look, you can't just move non-credit money around however you want. A lot of people seem to think they can just dictate where it goes, but that’s not how the system works. It doesn't work like that.

Regarding the Federal Reserve. I honestly think it’s better if they just buy up the junk. They’ve already pumped out such a massive amount of dollars anyway. It’s probably better to just take a hit on their earnings than to mess around with shady financial maneuvers that might actually expose how broken the whole system really is.

Hey there.
I was looking through this site about the financial system earlier. It’s basically just a deep dive into how everything connects. You know, all the moving parts that make the economy actually function. It feels like one of those things where if you don't understand the underlying structure, nothing else makes sense. It's pretty straightforward once you get past the technical jargon. Just a lot of information laid out there.

See? It’s always the same pattern... whenever things get too intense, someone is going to write off that debt... otherwise, we'll all end up in even deeper trouble... which means they'll just wipe the debt using non-credit money... so basically, non-credit money is already being used... it's nothing new... and even in a purely non-credit system, you'd still have interest and loans, so a non-credit system doesn't actually solve a thing...