Posts by crimsonfalcon10

Maria Thomas48 said:Alright. Maybe I didn't word it perfectly, but the end result is identical. Credit expands the money supply. You get inflation. Right now, loans are basically the only way new money gets created. A portion of that credit stays in circulation and grows the principal, and debt tends to grow over time at a rate somewhere between the inflation rate and the average bank interest rate. If you're looking at 4% inflation and 7% interest, after maybe twenty-some years, that debt actually outpaces the original money supply and there's no getting it back. That’s actually a good thing for some people. If you're a banker, it's the best scenario imaginable. You end up with a lifelong client you can exploit however you want because they don't see it coming. You dictate the rules, influence changes to the laws, and so on. All while they remain oblivious to the fact that you used Federal Reserve regulations to trap them in debt slavery from day one.

We really need to make sure that doesn't happen to us. People are just so emotionally attached to the very things that ruin them—loans they'll never be able to pay off, inflation that funnels all created value straight into bank debt, governments constantly shifting tax policies year after year in a desperate attempt to hit some jackpot, leading to nothing but poverty and hopelessness, and working until you're 65 (or eventually 95), and so on. There's plenty more I could list about what people seem to love about a purely credit-based system, but this is enough.

Regards

Let's look at it this way... not all money is credit-based... consider what happens when the Federal Reserve buys up European Central Bank assets... so far, the Federal Reserve has injected roughly 24 billion dollars into circulation like that... does the Federal Reserve earn interest on that cash, and what percentage of total circulation does that represent? 😉The exact same thing occurs when the FED buys up toxic assets from bank balance sheets...

Maria Thomas48 said:crimsonfalcon10, you're forgetting that inflation expands the money supply. Since you only have access to loans, that means your actual principal engagement just keeps climbing. I showed this using an Excel sheet—debt (assuming purchasing power stays constant) eventually grows by the sum of inflation plus interest. In practice, that means you can't actually pay back the principal because the debt is growing faster than inflation can catch up. It’s basically debt slavery. Is this economic masochism or just a lack of common sense?

Best,

🙂 Inflation doesn't increase the money supply... inflation is actually the result of an expanded money supply or faster money circulation...

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, back in the days of the old USA, there was no such thing as non-credit money. There were brief discussions regarding the concept, but they were suppressed almost immediately. It was just a dialogue between myself and Dr. Srećko Ugrin. Dr. Ugrin once mentioned to me that he authored an English-language treatise on non-credit money and dispatched copies to thirty of the most influential institutions globally, yet every single book vanished in transit. While the postal service eventually compensated him for the lost property, such restitution is meaningless when the knowledge itself is gone. Those who rule the world through credit-based money possess an overwhelming level of power. The internet has shifted the landscape, providing us with endless exposure to the mechanics of this dominant credit system. My contention is that non-credit money fosters human virtue, whereas credit-based money breeds corruption. Because credit-based currency is inherently insufficient, people are driven into a desperate, futile struggle to acquire it. With non-credit money, there would be enough for everyone, effectively ending the bitter competition for survival.
Markos, I will provide a brief clarification on how one calculates inflation. If the nominal GDP increases by 10% while the real GDP grows by only 5%, then inflation stands at 5%; consequently, one must write off 5% of the debt to ensure nominal output aligns with real output, thereby neutralizing inflation. One would need to pull these figures from federal agencies, as I lack my own datasets or the means to compile them. I have heard reports that Chinese prices are roughly 45% lower than global averages. My assumption is that China has essentially written off 45% of its credit, turning their goods into a sort of gift to the world.
Miroslav23, an exponential curve can describe the growth of both credit-based and non-credit money; they are simply two distinct trajectories. The credit-money curve tracks a much more aggressive expansion, whereas the non-credit curve shows a more modest rate of growth. However, even a small amount of non-credit money yields a vastly superior utility compared to a massive influx of credit-based money.

Why fight inflation so hard? Isn't inflation the only thing balancing the ratio between savings and debt? That makes it useful! It devalues savings, yes, but it also shrinks the weight of debt. Besides, even Ben is pumping non-credit money into the economy right now. Overnight loan rates are sitting between 0-0.25%, which is basically a handout. On top of that, he's buying up junk bonds that are currently worthless in exchange for dollars... to me, that acts like non-credit money... and despite what people say, that money isn't even truly circulating in the economy...

You talk about the struggle for credit money as if it wouldn't exist without non-credit money... but without that pressure, we wouldn't see any progress at all! Inflation and interest rates constantly push me to increase my income. That is exactly why I invest in my own knowledge. I don't waste my time thinking about how to cut costs; I focus exclusively on how to boost revenue. This is why I maintain that inflation is actually a good thing—it drives people to work harder and improve themselves. Without inflation, the imbalance between savings and debt would become unmanageable, and that instability would eventually break the whole system.

Regarding the velocity of money... perhaps in the long term (over a 10-year period), the velocity is declining, but in the short term, it moves in a sort of sine wave. There will always be moments where circulation speeds up or slows down.

Sandra Cox67 said:I stumbled upon this interesting debate and just had to weigh in on this particular claim:

"Why would exponential debt be an issue? Just look around... every law of nature involves exponential functions... why should economics be any different?"

Check out this lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
It uses some pretty clear-cut examples to explain how exponential functions impact modern society (it focuses more on resource depletion, but it’s a great way to wrap your head around how it affects our financial system, too).
The video is in English.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... after three parts, I just couldn't bring myself to listen anymore... 😉

Matthew Patel12 said:crimsonfalcon10, you could devise whatever money supply mechanism you find most convenient, yet once implemented, the velocity of money will inevitably begin its deceleration. This is a reality uncovered by Friedman. While Maria Thomas48 expressed appreciation for the clarification I provided, I am more interested in your perspective on the matter. If the velocity of money slows down, then a replenishment of liquidity via non-credit money becomes an absolute necessity.

It’s obvious! If you can't fix things by increasing the velocity of money, then you have to make up for it by printing cash... I feel like we are all circling the same core idea here, though it seems we are looking at different timeframes... When I discussed accelerating the velocity of money, it is actually possible... if, say, only 80% of the total money in circulation is being used, that remaining 20% could potentially jumpstart the velocity since we measure circulation against the full 100%... Those shifts in circulation value should be enough to pull the system out of a crisis... But... we are dealing with pure consumer psychology here, which is totally unpredictable, so one shouldn't rely on it... During this crisis, Ben first tried cutting interest rates to force that 20% back into circulation, but it didn't work... So he moved on to QE or just printing money... Since even that hasn't yielded the results he wanted, he's preparing to print even more... And he'll keep doing it until Americans emerge from the crisis...

Let's talk about the American Dream for a second... Back in the 70s, someone made a deal to ensure oil is only bought with dollars... and man, did they make a good deal... Now, Americans can print money without a second thought because they know everyone else needs those dollars to buy oil... As oil prices and demand rise, the US can print more and more dollars without fearing hyperinflation... The whole world essentially works to ensure Americans get to enjoy themselves... They buy up everything in sight with basically worthless paper just because everyone else needs that specific paper to purchase oil... If you try to rebel against that setup, the US sends in a military intervention immediately to bring you back in line... 🤣

Maria Thomas48 said:If what makes you happy is expanding equations to an open system—basically using the equality of three deficits. To be more precise, when a state balances imports with exports (total trade equals zero), it acts as a virtually money-isolated system.
If there’s a trade deficit with foreign nations, things get even worse regarding the monetary profit within the community.

Sum of monetary profits = budget deficit - trade deficit = - financing deficit

or the full equality of three deficits:

trade deficit = financing deficit + budget deficit

All of this is explained in the translated book Krueger "Macroeconomics" on page 39. You can download the PDF version from the University of California economics department website. It uses the symbols economists typically use, but the essence remains the same.

Well, you can clearly see the state's monetary balance in an open system. Without a positive monetary balance, the state loses money, the economy works at a loss in total, and everything heads 100% toward a crisis. Every economist knows this, but they don't realize that by balancing the trade account (exports=imports), a reduction occurs which shows that:

Sum of monetary profits = budget deficit = - financing deficit

Which implies the following. The money savings realized by entities (companies and individuals) are then actually financed by the government budget deficit. If the state took out credit for the deficit, then it means it has to pay back more than it borrowed. Or rather, it needs to pay back more than the economy actually generated in monetary profit.

Our economists fail to see that almost direct link between monetary profit and the budget deficit. In reality, it differs because of the trade balance. That's why I try to find a solution for all countries at once and I balance the trade accounts (through swapping). That way, no single country pays off the debts of others.

Is it clearer now?

It's even easier to prove that a money-isolated community suffers a monetary loss in circulation because one part of the entities keeps accumulating monetary profit, which is explained by the slowing down of circulation. This happens because the monetary profit accumulates and is then invested.

How will you solve the monetary loss in circulation? By speeding up the circulation of the remaining money. Genius. You're close to a Nobel Prize (big money is smiling at you). Just explain it to Šuker and we'll be set. You haven't managed to convince me how the household budget would function then, or where that acceleration comes from. I know practically how it could be done, but I'd like to hear from you how to make all payments at the same time with less money in the system.

Mr. Matthew Patel12, thanks for explaining the slowing of money circulation. I have nothing to add.

Regards
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

There are several ways to handle this... money intended for circulation is never actually 100% in motion... which means its velocity is realistically lower than what is truly possible... we need to hunt down that frozen cash and force it back into circulation... another way is to shorten payment cycles... if people get paid every single week instead of once a month, you can significantly speed up the flow of money...

Maria Thomas48 said:John Doe, look, I’m no economic analyst. Even the top-tier pros get their forecasts wrong all the time.

I’m looking at this through the lens of a closed system—you know, a nation with its own budget and private entities. The whole point is that a system has to be able to function in isolation, just like any country does on a global scale. If you deny that, you're basically arguing that the entire planet can't function.

You have to realize that China, which is pulling in record surpluses, has to put that money somewhere. And they put it into the USA. That’s how Americans profited from those investments. There’s actually a recent article showing that China has its own risk assessment house for credit ratings, and they’ve flagged the USA as a really poor place to invest right now. Plus, the USA and the European Union handle public debt financing differently—though you could argue the Federal Reserve's interventions during the crisis in Greece were essentially illegal exceptions to the rule.

The global economy doesn't interest me that much. I only see it as a collection of examples where certain actions just fail to reduce debt in the long run.

You still haven't really answered my question about what happens to rent payments when the velocity of money speeds up. You explained how increased circulation comes from higher production and a rising GDP. But I want to know what happens when production stays the same but everything just gets more expensive. Here is the real question: how are you supposed to pay an ever-increasing rent if the velocity of money increases tenfold while the actual amount of cash decreases? How does that work in the real world?

Best,

You’re making a mistake here... A country might be viewed as a closed system, but it's actually composed of countless open systems! Truly closed systems barely exist. For a nation to function as a closed system, it would need to produce absolutely everything internally, eliminating any need for imports—it would have to be a perfect substitute for every single product on Earth just to work. Furthermore, even if such a state existed, it would still be made up of multiple open systems. If I had a truly closed system within a country, it would essentially be an isolated entity with zero communication with the rest of the nation; you’d have to view that system and the country as two entirely separate things. The moment you introduce any exchange of goods, services, or money between them, the system isn't closed anymore—it's open!

So, let's talk about paying rent... I see people are getting all worked up over open versus closed systems. Let's just say the government is a closed system while my household is an open one. Because if my house were actually a closed system, I wouldn't have to pay rent at all—there would be no money flowing in or out!

So, the government tracks GDP, does it? $33333There's money on the horizon! $333The recovery rate is sitting at 100... now, someone from that collection of open systems just needs to tuck it away! $33 So, there are only 900 units left in circulation... Are the other players in the system ramping up their pace because of the recent economic boom and higher spending? Is the GDP still holding steady at 111.11? $33333So I can just keep paying my rent since my income stays steady... Sure, there's less cash sitting in my bank account at any given moment, but because money flows through my system more frequently, I’ve always got enough on hand to cover the bills!

Does reducing the money supply always lead to a drop in GDP? Does increasing it necessarily trigger inflation or an economic surge? Not necessarily!

Maria Thomas48 said:crimsonfalcon10, could you walk me through how money velocity actually speeds up by, say, ten times using a household budget as an example? I’m assuming you get the idea that the amount of cash you're holding onto is inversely proportional to how fast it circulates. Like, if the velocity were infinite, you’d effectively have almost zero money left in your pocket.

And just to reiterate: you can't fix someone's poverty by handing them a loan. It just leaves them even more broke. It's the same deal with any nation under this kind of system—you can't bail out a country because the only way to actually pay off debt is to be hyper-focused on exports and basically dump the entire debt burden onto the countries you're selling to.

Best,

Why do you keep basing everything on a closed system? Why don't you try applying your mathematical model to something like Germany, China, and the USA... using three different currencies like USD, EUR, and CNY...

You mentioned that example once about a father and son where the father gives the son brooms to use as tools... but what happens when the son learns how to make the brooms himself and doesn't need them anymore... and the father hasn't learned how to make the actual tools...

It's the exact same thing with velocity... today the father produces one broom and the son produces one tool...

The father buys the tool from the son for a dollar, and then the son uses that same dollar to buy a broom from the father... the next day, the father produces 10 brooms and the son produces 10 tools... they can repeat that same transaction 10 times in a single day... which means we've increased the velocity of circulation tenfold using just one single dollar in the system... The entire economy runs on this principle, except instead of one dollar, there are 1.7 trillion dollars in the system...

Besides, just look at the M1 money supply on the Federal Reserve website and it’s easy to see why the crisis happened... The Federal Reserve saw stagnation in the M1 money supply from 2001 to 2007... the economy was growing solely based on the velocity of money... and once the housing bubble—which was microeconomically inflated—burst, people panicked and the velocity of money in the system slowed down abruptly, leading to the crisis... Saving people is the easy part... but now we have to restore confidence, which requires a much longer period of time and a larger amount of money injected into the system to compensate for the shortage caused by the drop in velocity...

Maria Thomas48 said:The data on non-credit money demand basically shows one thing. It just can't act as a substitute for taxation.

Real backing for non-credit money comes from active production, not just sitting around doing nothing. You have to actually earn non-credit money; it only represents a small slice of a product's total price. Basically, it’s the profit that isn't immediately reinvested—it's how you turn surplus value into new capital. If you let that accumulate, you can use it for future investments, which means you won't need to inject as much non-credit money into the system later on. This is exactly what Mr. Stole was getting at. It’s the cycle everyone talks about: working, saving, and then investing. But that only works if the amount of non-credit money being issued is exactly what is actually needed.

Because of that whole idea that you shouldn't get something for nothing, social assistance shouldn't just be handed out for free. It really should require some kind of community service in return. I know there are already some small towns over in the States where they actually implement this kind of thing.

Funding a war—or even just defense—is an exceptional circumstance in any stable nation, provided all the other laws actually hold up. To be honest, I couldn't care less about what happens to the economy during wartime.

It’s pretty obvious that you need actual work backing up your cash flow. If someone is pulling in massive profits without doing much real labor, they’re essentially just inflating the currency—especially when they’re dealing directly with the government. My take is that any company wanting to land federal contracts in the future should have to agree to profit caps based on their total revenue. This shouldn't just apply to the big corporations either; it needs to extend to their suppliers and employees too. The government simply can't afford to be reckless with spending. When they are, it just ends up siphoning wealth away from the entire community and concentrating it into the hands of a tiny few.

I’m not saying all this because I'm some kind of dreamer or because I wish things worked this way. It isn't about idealism. These are just logical conclusions drawn from the equations. Money only actually holds value if it is literally earned through work. That is what gives it any real standing against another currency.

I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on using the velocity of money as a fix for liquidity shortages. But what I really need is some clarity here. If we assume the velocity of money increases by 4% every single year—and stays that way indefinitely—then the math gets interesting. At that rate, the velocity should double every 17 years or so. Following that logic, over an 85-year span, you’re looking at a 32-fold increase in speed.

Advocating for the way things are right now is just plain crazy. There’s no way for the current system to actually offset inflation, other than through exponential borrowing—which we already know is impossible to pay back. Every time they hike up wages, it just speeds up our slide toward a total collapse. At the end of the day, inflation is just what happens when credit expands, and that expansion only happens because people can't settle their debts without taking out even bigger loans. It's basically the Davor Šuker method. That's just how it works.

Without credit, the whole system would just grind to a halt within a few years, sliding straight into deflation and recession. It’s inevitable. It happens the moment lenders decide to tighten the tap. But here is the thing. That move would basically be suicide for them too, because once that starts happening, people will finally start looking for actual alternatives. That is exactly why Greece was handed those loans—it was just a way to buy more time. It is the same reason they come up with these bank taxes. They keep inventing new things just to stall for time. Reducing the budget deficit is just another one of those fabrications used to keep the clock ticking.

When you realize that a community's entire profit engine relies on exports, outside investments, and running a budget deficit, then everything becomes clear. It's just how the math works out. When we cut back on the deficit, the community ends up walking away with less profit. It's just how it works. You tighten the belt, you lose that extra cushion. Simple as that.It’s just going to drag more companies straight into bankruptcy. You’d have to offset that somehow—maybe through massive exports, new investments, or just piling on even larger amounts of debt. But honestly, the only way for the community to actually see a steady stream of cash profit is through a budget deficit. Of course, that has to be non-credit based. These are just facts. Even the famous economists don't really grasp this, and they spend half their time arguing for a balanced budget instead.

It’s kind of strange, isn't it? You can only really find information about non-credit money online. Not a single mainstream news outlet seems to care about it. All these claims about how unsustainable the system is... they aren't backed up by any actual math. If people actually laid out the mathematics—just like I have done here—solutions would show up immediately.

Here is that derivation again, which holds true for a closed community without credit:



Best,
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Theoretically, circulation speed could reach infinity... so an acceleration of 32 times shouldn't be an issue at all!

Why should exponential debt be considered such a massive problem? Just look around you! Every single law of nature involves an exponential function—why on earth would economics be any different?

When it comes to pulling the plug... just look at how passive the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have been lately. Is there any other instance in history where they've played it this safe? It’s exactly what I warned about. That top 2% who hold all the capital have to act somewhat decently, and they have to make sure life remains tolerable for the other 98%. Because if that 2% decides to screw everyone over, the masses will find them easily, and things could get ugly fast. Don't worry, though—that 2% is plenty concerned about their own safety and terrified of the public.

Europe is playing it close to the vest right now... but eventually, the cash is going to be flying everywhere! Ben already sees where this is heading... if things don't shift gears, he’ll start dropping money from helicopters! Well, figuratively speaking, of course—he'll basically be handing it out for free just to keep the cycle spinning!

Look at what's happening in Greece right now... the transit strikes are already underway! This is going to gut the national budget, isn't it? It makes paying off their debt even more impossible. If the European Central Bank had just stepped in to fund them from the beginning, the bailout costs would have been significantly lower. Now, those recovery costs are just skyrocketing exponentially. But hey, I suppose they need this lesson so they can act much faster when another country hits a crisis!

Economics is actually quite simple... if you just grasp one fundamental law of nature, the entire system becomes clear. The issue? Most economists have such a superficial understanding of natural laws that it stunts their ability to truly master their own field. Their education is far too specialized, which prevents them from ever seeing the big picture. 😉

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

Withdrawing money doesn't necessarily trigger a production slump or a crisis... we can compensate for less money in the system by increasing the velocity of circulation...

I don't understand why everyone is so against the current system... you just need to watch the trends and jump from one asset class to another; making a profit is actually quite easy that way...

This system works perfectly fine for me... I generate enough profit through speculation across various assets to keep me satisfied... I see no reason to advocate for different systems when this one functions flawlessly... 😉

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

we should just nationalize everything... then the problem is solved... 😉

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, obviously, the process of acquiring pure gold creates too much extra cost. I was looking at this from the perspective of people needing a standard unit of value. Non-credit money could provide a stable value just like gold—maybe even better, since gold is just a commodity where price depends on supply and demand.

Miroslav23, your explanation is actually quite funny, if you think about it. Mostly because it shows you don't quite get how things work here. Money isn't being printed anymore; it's being issued through credit. You should probably look up the Federal Reserve Act or the statutes governing the Federal Reserve. Most money issuance happens via loans. The only real cash flow is the interest paid by the central bank to commercial banks on their deposits. That amount is tiny, and it's way smaller than the inflation caused by all that credit expansion.

Best,

🤣🤣🤣

It looks like my previous claim was true after all: only 2% of people actually understand economics. The rest will spend forever searching for answers and wondering why interest rates keep climbing, why currencies fluctuate so wildly, or why my savings are worth so much less now than they were ten years ago... why everyone will eventually have to bail out Greece, Portugal, Spain, or Italy... why most people will lose their shirts when converting Swiss loans into USD... they will never grasp what the American dream actually is, or more importantly, the mechanism used to achieve it...

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, inflation isn't some necessary evil; it's purely destructive, and within a non-credit money system, it simply doesn't exist.
Maria Thomas48, the formula I proposed for providing real backing to non-credit money remains the only logical path, given that gold carries an exorbitant cost, whereas an ideal cost should be zero.

Is inflation necessary? Yes! It forces money out of people's mattresses and back into circulation. If we didn't have it, all that cash could theoretically just sit under a bed forever. That's why we need to print money! By using inflation, I'm reducing the power of "mattress money" so that nobody suddenly decides to spend every cent they've been hoarding all at once and crashes the entire financial system!

Brian Nelson4 said:So, I guess thieves are also responsible for our "progress" now. 😬

One question on this topic: How does fiat currency actually differ from commodity-based money, like gold?

So even a thief will eventually spend that stolen cash... and the local shopkeepers receiving it will be thrilled... which implies that even a criminal can be a productive member of society... he just took money out from under his mattress and put it back into circulation... 😉 meanwhile, the victim who had their funds swiped has to go out and earn more... they have to work hard to create new value all over again... unfortunately, that's just how the world works... 😉

Maria Thomas48 said:Maybe it would have been more appropriate if Sisyphus had answered me instead of crimsonfalcon10. If anyone wants to be a masochist, that's their call. But honestly, anyone advocating for preserving this credit-based system is just being a masochist.

I feel like I've shown countless times that the current system has a deliberate flaw designed to prevent actual prosperity. I lay it out using logic, math, and undeniable examples, and the response I get is always something like: "That doesn't apply to us. We want to work until we're 95. We want our past labor to turn into nothing so we're forced to keep working." That’s just how a 20-year-old thinks. By the time you hit 60, you'll be completely burnt out from the factories, the shifts, the bosses, the meager paychecks, and you'll be counting down the days until retirement—even if it's for pennies—just so you don't have to look at the same faces at work every single day. And now you're telling me it's fine for my savings to just evaporate on its own right when I need them most, at a time when I won't be able to pick up extra side gigs after hours. That is pure, unadulterated masochism.

The government moved to push the women's retirement age up to 65 today. What happens in twenty years? Maybe we'll be working until 75? They try to "fix" flaws in the Constitution by just extending the working life. What's the limit here—working until death or becoming disabled? If they keep applying this logic, I'm certain we'll see a massive spike in disability claims. You could also expect an increase in suicides among older, capable people because some might prefer that over being left disabled by some "accidental" mishap.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it's the main point. Working forever isn't the answer. We should be using our brains to find a better way. Labor alone won't pull us out of a crisis (look at Japan for example). We need to expose this scam as soon as possible, rather than defending it as the only viable solution. I assume you all want a better future for your kids. By supporting this system, you're ensuring they won't have one (unless you happen to be a banker).

Regards

🙂 The 2% of people who understand how the system works can live comfortably without working, but 98% of people will live this way... that's reality... though those 2% must take care of the other 98% and somewhat 'fairly' direct capital toward them... especially since we must ensure the satisfaction of the masses doesn't drop below a critical level... because if the masses get angry, anything can happen...

I came across this topic today and it's fascinating... we share similar views regarding the amount of money in circulation... if that were the only variable in the system, it would be easy... but we have one pump driving that mass of money, and that is psychology, which is highly unpredictable and volatile, jumping quickly from optimism to pessimism... and that's where the problem lies, because economic growth is built on optimism, not just an increase in the money supply... that's why these market crashes happen...

Cheers!

Maria Thomas48 said:You could look at it that way within the credit system. Every single dollar someone decides to hold onto basically creates a shortage of cash in circulation. But honestly, locking your money away in a bank account doesn't really change the math or make things any better.

Yes and no. As an economist, you get it—banks can issue multiple times more in loans based on just your single deposit. From a development standpoint, that’s great, but economically speaking, it creates this massive surge in the money supply that inevitably drives up inflation. It almost feels like you'd be better off not giving your savings to the bank at all. Of course, that only works if every single saver does the exact same thing. If they did, the bank wouldn't have the deposits necessary to hand out those huge loans, and any resulting crisis would be minor. We could actually address the issues much sooner. But instead, we just keep stacking up debt, while only a tiny fraction of people ever bother to write about actual solutions.

Besides that—and I’ve already touched on this in my previous posts—when you leave money sitting in a bank, they're basically using your deposit as leverage to pull even more cash into circulation. It’s how they play with both your account and theirs. Even when people try to save, it doesn't actually help the economy much because there isn't enough non-credit money flowing in to keep things moving. If there was a steady stream of non-credit money flowing in, we could actually put loans to work for real development. You could take those credits, use them to build things, and then just pay them back using that non-credit inflow. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.It’s all just one big scam, honestly. Once you hit a certain volume of debt, you simply can't pay it back anymore. The interest rates end up eclipsing the actual principal you started with. It's just how it works.

I think you might have skimmed over my previous posts. The whole system is basically a scam, and you can see it clearly just by looking at inflation. That whole "buy low, sell high" cycle—basically just middleman profiteering—is one of the main triggers for inflation. No actual new value is being added to the world, yet everyone is hunting for a profit. It’s only natural that the money supply has to inflate. On top of that, inflation is actually a practical way they've tried to manage things, like taking out massive new loans just to pay off the old ones. But honestly, it's hard to pull off long-term because when you're inflating the money supply to cover debt, you end up drowning in the sum of the interest plus the inflation itself. A Eureka for economists? The logical conclusion here is simple: any positive bank interest rate eventually leads to infinite debt, faster or slower, because of that inflationary borrowing. You're essentially increasing the money supply through credit just to stay afloat. I find myself wondering... should I really be the one breaking the ice and writing about stuff that people should have figured out a long time ago?

It’s honestly wild that an economist can look at a system with a finite amount of money and actually believe it’s a viable solution. Take the EU, for example. If they were to somehow double their population over the next 200 years—though who even knows what the world will look like then—how could you possibly think the current money supply would still be enough? You're basically assuming that in two centuries, absolutely nobody will manage to save a single cent or pull any capital out of circulation. It's a strange way to look at things. I suppose if we were dealing with a population shrinking by 3% every year, the math might make sense, but under these conditions? Not really.

Hey there.

I was looking through this site again today—sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home—and it really gets you thinking about how everything is interconnected. It’s one of those corners of the internet that just sits there, quietly making points about the way our financial systems actually function under the hood. Most people don't spend much time digging into the structural mechanics of money, they just accept the status quo, I guess. But if you look closely at the way capital flows, especially when you start applying some of those classic economic theories we all studied, things start to look a bit different. It's about the foundation. If the foundation is shaky, the whole house is eventually going to tilt. Just an observation.

Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.