Carl Foster8 said:Money = debt... deficit = ?
Money is also "printed" through multiplication.
In closed loops.
Home ›
Ashley Collins4 › Posts
Posts by Ashley Collins4
21 posts shown.
In closed loops.
Carl Morales9 said:Ashley Collins4 As Ashley Collins4 points out:
I find myself wondering which institution provided your training before you stepped into the banking sector, because looking at this particular logic, one can't help but feel a bit puzzled.
I find myself wondering about the true nature and purpose behind the words you choose to put forward.
I feel that my previous points were quite elementary, perhaps even something one would expect a child to grasp upon finishing grade school. It seems like common sense to me, much like understanding how a basic thermostat regulates the temperature in a home. Since you seem to disagree, I would be genuinely curious to learn about your own academic background—what specific economic institutions did you attend, and which authoritative texts or literature could you point to that might support your particular perspective?
Think of a deficit simply as the gap between what comes in and what goes out. Since the federal government is responsible for covering all its obligations, you might wonder where that extra cash actually originates. A surplus works the exact same way, just with the roles reversed—it’s when revenue outpaces spending. Essentially, when the government runs a surplus, it acts like a vacuum pulling liquidity out of the economy, whereas a deficit allows it to act more like a pump, injecting capital back into the system. 🤣
Well, I am certainly glad to see that you have finally grasped the core of the matter.Ashley Collins4 As expressed by:
Printing isn't just a single-track process where you're limited to one specific method; rather, it's much like how there are various ways to navigate a highway, though in a professional print shop, everything centers around one specialized machine that handles the heavy lifting.
It truly makes one wonder who exactly is tasked with the printing of our money; if we were to approach the situation with real efficiency, those facilities ought to be operating around the clock in three full shifts.
Haha... You seem to be under the impression that all the money circulating within the system is merely the physical paper cash we carry around in our wallets. 🤣
This particular advice is truly excellent and is a practice I personally swear by, so I think you might find it quite helpful to adopt it as well.
Deficit and surplus of what? The federal budget? That's where we differ, because the Government
either pulls money out of or pumps it back into the system. We know how they pull it out, but how they pump it
back in is anyone's guess—maybe cutting taxes so they take less, leaving
more in the system. But that isn't a solution, because people look at the system as something separate,
like "them" versus "us." They don't see that WE ARE ALL SWIMMING IN THE SAME POOL OF
MONEY!!!
If there is no money overall, then there's no money for you or me. We
can pump it in, suck it out, or move it from one empty pocket to another
all we want, but nothing changes. In fact, it can only get worse.
Where does the money come from? The money printer!!!
All the money in the system is either physical paper or, through various methods like checks, cards,
and transfers, it's all based on a digital ledger moving from account to account. To move money from your account,
you first have to have actual funds in there to begin with.
Gregory Williams7 said:Ashley Collins4, you truly have no clue what you are talking about, yet you insist on making a point with every single post you write.
Money is merely a medium used to exchange goods. Money itself is not a commodity. It is nothing more than simple paper which, aside from being used for payments, could just as easily be used to light a cigarette or serve as toilet paper—and not particularly pleasant toilet paper at that.
The moment you grasp this reality, you will understand why a 10% interest rate isn't the key to repaying a loan; the real necessity lies in increasing production.
The Federal Reserve protects people like you from yourselves by managing the exchange rate. Take my word for it.
Gregory Williams, you're becoming a bore with this nonsense. If money is only useful to you for lighting
cigarettes or rolling them up to smoke, then go ahead and smoke it.
Money is a tool used to buy something of value. If you have it, you can buy it. The logic is dead simple: if you don't have it, you can't
buy anything. PERIOD.
Look, a manufacturer might have all sorts of motives to produce
as much as possible, but they can't produce those quantities if they can't afford the raw materials,
the supplies, or the inputs needed to build anything in the first place. NO MONEY, NO PRODUCT.
Economics rests on two basic pillars: goods and money. Through
trade, they act as opposites during a transaction. I give you money; you give me the goods.
It's elementary school logic: if there's less money circulating, consumption drops,
meaning people stop buying things, and that's how the economic system starts to collapse.
That manufacturer I mentioned earlier? They can't produce what they planned because they haven't
collected their payments. They haven't sold the goods and secured the capital
needed to restart the cycle or scale up production.
The medicine is obvious now.
I wouldn't recommend smoking, just to save you from yourself.
Carl Morales9 said:It seems from your explanation that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how the banking system actually functions. Beyond the Federal Reserve, money is generated by all commercial banks and by the government through budget deficits. The interest charged by the Federal Reserve serves as a mechanism to pull excess liquidity out of the system. There are numerous ways to print money; the true science lies in knowing how to extract that surplus from the economy.
What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.
Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.
You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.
Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.
Carl Foster8 said:A German person doesn't need to beg the government; the government gave them a guarantee $133 that deposits are secure.
Interestingly, I used to think the money had vanished because we had a trade deficit—basically, banks were
issuing loans that we just spent. If we had a floating exchange rate, the value of the currency would have dropped. Since we have a fixed rate,
the value didn't drop, but the quantity certainly shrank.The main metric for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you might only see 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.
There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via oversight boards.
Let's set aside those boards for a moment.
What is the Government supposed to do in the case of a Duke Energy type crisis? Let it fail?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why you can't function without it.
These are the golden geese the country relies on. You can't let the US
run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
Personally, I want to build a tank so I can defend the country tomorrow. Everything on that path—
from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and research institutes
where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must be in the hands of government agencies.
You can't sit around negotiating with a private guy like Jim about ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic circuits. We shouldn't have to import everything.
Do you see my point?
You're spinning the argument, and not very well.
Projects like the Dalmatian coast infrastructure shouldn't be handled haphazardly.
You need to know the maintenance costs and the vehicle volume required beforehand to ensure a road is profitable and actually builds wealth for American citizens.
Even with Duke Energy, you managed to twist the argument.
That example just highlights how little some people care about a company they don't actually own. Plus, there’s definitely some theft involved.
In the private sector, you just don't see situations where an owner would intentionally act against their own interests.
Those deposits don't matter. I mean, not a single major bank in this country has gone under yet, so what's the big deal?
I see how it is. It’s just not happening. And that’s exactly why we’re getting screwed. The banks stay perfectly stable—it’s never a crisis for them—while everyone else takes the hit.
Everything just collapsed. Nobody seems to have a clue where things went sideways, so we’re all just sitting around waiting for better days. Who knows?
Where exactly is this supposed to come from? If nothing actually happens, nothing changes.
There isn't just one reason why cash is drying up. The root cause? It's all about "lending money at interest."
The whole thing is flawed from the ground up. Hypothetically speaking, nobody in the market actually holds a single cent.
The Federal Reserve handles the initial funding for the country and manages the distribution of the currency through the banks.
We're talking about the sheer volume of currency being dumped into the market—say, $500 billion—all at once.
Interest rates, the Federal Reserve, and banks all lined up at 10%, for example. Basically, the market just needs enough peace and quiet to pay back that principal.
Add another 10% to that principal. It’s pretty obvious the capital is split up and we're looking at...
It’s small change, sure, but it’s about the principle. The real question is: who's actually going to pay back that 10% they physically took?
No chance. That 10% market share is just being carved out by taking from you and me. So, who’s actually winning here?
He’ll probably end up getting them from someone else anyway. Between those steam vacuum companies and whatever Kaya is up to, he's running out of options.
You’ve gotta pay up—electricity, water, taxes, and all that other stuff.
Whatever happens, happens. But for starters, that poor soul who walks right into those famous traps... what a mess.
10%? That money doesn't actually exist. Nobody is out there printing it.
All that interest just flows straight back into the bank. The people running the show keep winning, and we just get sucked right back into the next cycle.
10%. Bit by bit, we're drying up the market liquidity. Just saying—everyone's feeling it.
Whether it’s a tax hike, utility bills, or some new random levy on basically everything—any price increase at all is just more of the same.
Doing the exact same thing.
Who’s actually keeping track of this game? Honestly, the Federal Reserve should be stepping in to handle this, but how exactly would they do that? Just print more dollars to cover a year's worth of interest? I don't think so. But then again, the Federal Reserve...
I’ve banned myself from doing that. That right there is exactly why there's no cash flowing through the market.
I’m not changing my points; they just don't align with yours.
Well, I guess I learned a thing or two from that Dalmatian person.
I think there’s something much deeper going on here than just the government failing to look out for its own companies.
Private enterprise isn't going to act against its own interests, but don't be fooled—it’s definitely going to push its own agenda hard.
When does it start clashing with the national interest? Because, let's be honest, it’s already obvious.
It seems like nobody actually sees—or even understands—what the national interest really is.
Carl Foster8 said:A German person doesn't need to beg the government; the government gave them a guarantee $133 that deposits are secure.
Interestingly, I used to think the money had vanished because we had a trade deficit—basically, banks were
issuing loans that we just spent. If we had a floating exchange rate, the value of the currency would have dropped. Since we have a fixed rate,
the value didn't drop, but the quantity certainly shrank.The main metric for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you might only see 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.
There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via oversight boards.
Let's set aside those boards for a moment.
What is the Government supposed to do in the case of a Duke Energy type crisis? Let it fail?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why you can't function without it.
These are the golden geese the country relies on. You can't let the US
run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
Personally, I want to build a tank so I can defend the country tomorrow. Everything on that path—
from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and research institutes
where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must be in the hands of government agencies.
You can't sit around negotiating with a private guy like Jim about ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic circuits. We shouldn't have to import everything.
Do you see my point?
You're spinning the argument, and not very well.
Projects like the Dalmatian coast infrastructure shouldn't be handled haphazardly.
You need to know the maintenance costs and the vehicle volume required beforehand to ensure a road is profitable and actually builds wealth for American citizens.
Even with Duke Energy, you managed to twist the argument.
That example just highlights how little some people care about a company they don't actually own. Plus, there’s definitely some theft involved.
In the private sector, you just don't see situations where an owner would intentionally act against their own interests.
Those deposits don't matter. I mean, let's be real—not a single major bank in this country has gone under, so why worry?
I see how it is. It’s never going to change, which is exactly why we’re the ones getting screwed. The big banks stay rock solid—they don't deal with crises—while everyone else gets left in the dirt.
Everything just fell apart. Nobody actually knows where things went sideways, so we're all just sitting here waiting for better days. Who knows?
Where exactly is this change supposed to come from? If nothing actually happens, then nothing changes.
The cash crunch isn't just one thing; it’s got layers. But if you want the root cause? It’s all about "lending money at interest."
The problem goes right to the core. Hypothetically speaking, nobody on the market even has a single dollar.
The Federal Reserve handles the initial funding for the country and then distributes the currency through the banks.
We're talking about massive amounts of cash—say, 500 billion in currency—just being dumped onto the market all at once.
Interest rates? Between the Federal Reserve and the banks all lining up at, say, 10%... the market better find a way to pay back that principal.
Add another 10% to that principal. It’s obvious the capital is split up and we're talking about...
It’s the principle of the thing, even if the amount is small. The real question is: who’s actually going to pay back that 10% they physically took?
No way. That 10% market share is just being carved out by taking it from you and me. So, who's actually winning here?
He’s probably just going to get them from someone else anyway. You've got those steam vacuum companies right there, and then there's Kaya.
You’ve got to pay up—electricity, water, taxes, and all that other stuff.
What's happening on the ground? For starters, that pathetic loser who keeps stumbling into those famous circles...
10%. That money doesn't actually exist. Nobody is out there printing it.
All those interest payments just end up straight into the bank's pockets. The people running the show keep doing exactly what they're doing, and we'll just end up right back where we started, stuck in the same endless cycle.
10%. Little by little, we're just draining the market of liquidity. Just saying—everyone's doing it.
Whether it’s a tax hike, an increase in electricity rates, or some new levy on just about anything else—it’s all the same story. Every time they raise the price of anything, it's just another way to squeeze us.
Doing the exact same thing.
Who's actually following this game? Honestly, the Federal Reserve should be the one stepping in to handle this mess. How exactly do they plan to fix it?
So, they could just print more dollars to cover the total interest for the year. But then you've got the Federal Reserve to deal with.
I banned myself from doing that. That’s basically why there’s no cash left in the market.
I'm not changing my arguments; they just don't line up with yours.
Well, I guess I actually learned something from that guy.
I think there’s something much deeper going on here than just the government failing to look out for its own companies.
Sure, private business isn't going to fight its own interests, but they’re definitely going to push their own agenda hard.
When does it actually start clashing with the national interest? Because at this point, it’s pretty obvious.
It seems like nobody can see—or maybe they just don't have a clue—what actually constitutes the national interest.
It looks like private interests are slowly but surely starting to outweigh the national interest.
Carl Foster8 said:The Government covers losses from failing banks based on guarantees provided by the administration. $133 here. Banks hold very strong market positions and get rich off them, but nothing stops you from buying shares in those banks. That way, you become an owner.
Whether the highways should have been built or not is a separate debate. I'm specifically talking about low-yield areas like a coastal region. What exactly did you mean regarding the subsequent management of the highway???
Public enterprises are already under Government administration.
No, the Government's mistake is that Duke Energy operated at a loss for so many years, and then once things got critical and the "managers" faced court, Duke Energy suddenly became profitable. That is the Government error I am talking about.
Everything needs to be sold.
Banks have a massive safety net behind them that keeps them from sinking, not some vague
market position. Most banks are eighty percent foreign-owned, so
I have to ask: can you imagine a German person begging the US Government to cover his
losses and the wreckage left by a recession? And the recession happened, because production
in all the manufacturing plants was barely running a single shift, or small and medium
businesses were shutting down entirely.
Banks aren't getting paid back, and they aren't issuing new loans—whether to businesses
or citizens, for homes or anything else—if they had to act the way they do
in the US, England, Germany, or Italy, where the State covers operational costs
to keep credit flowing to a struggling economy, ideally with
lower interest rates. The English went as low as 1.5-2%.
That doesn't happen here, which is why foreign banks are a bottleneck in normal
commerce. They do the exact opposite, which makes sense if you think about it, because they work
for their own interests. When there's no money in the market, they hike interest rates on new
loans. By limiting credit through higher rates, they think they can maintain
their previous liquidity. Sure, that just drives more clients away, and that's where the
economic shutdown begins.
Simply put, there is no money in circulation. Money is just gathering dust in bank
vaults, at the Fed, or tied up in various funds and frozen assets,
but it isn't circulating in the market.
We need to find a way to get that money moving again, or have the Federal Reserve
start doing something it has never done: directly lending to the economy, just to get started.
The main lever for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see, say, 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you'll see maybe 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.
There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via boards of directors.
Let's ignore the boards for a second.
What is the State supposed to do in a case like the Duke Energy mess? Just let it collapse?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why we can't function without it.
These are the cash cows that the State relies on. We can't allow the US
to run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
I want to build a tank so I can defend this country tomorrow. Everything on that path
—from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and the research
institutes where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must stay in the hands of government agencies.
You can't negotiate with a private guy named Jim about raw ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic components and radars; otherwise, we'll just end up importing everything.
Do you see my point?
Gregory Williams7, you’re clearly living in some fantasy land fueled by American liberal capitalism when
you claim everything needs to be privatized—not because it’s actually better, but just because it "has" to be, like it's some requirement of this
new world order we're all being forced into.
We're obviously just two sides of the same coin.
Your mindset is stuck on a downward spiral, just blindly following whatever
Mom or Dad tells you to do. Honestly, you're so blinded by that ideology that you can't even see
what's staring you right in the face: there are much better systems out there than this one.
It's unbelievable that you don't realize we've failed precisely because of the mistakes, the incompleteness, and the sheer
anarchy of the current system.
you claim everything needs to be privatized—not because it’s actually better, but just because it "has" to be, like it's some requirement of this
new world order we're all being forced into.
We're obviously just two sides of the same coin.
Your mindset is stuck on a downward spiral, just blindly following whatever
Mom or Dad tells you to do. Honestly, you're so blinded by that ideology that you can't even see
what's staring you right in the face: there are much better systems out there than this one.
It's unbelievable that you don't realize we've failed precisely because of the mistakes, the incompleteness, and the sheer
anarchy of the current system.
In this recessionary climate, banks are basically badgering the Government to bail them out and cover their losses. When does
that capital actually get loaned back to entrepreneurs? It doesn't happen here, which is
a massive mistake. Banks don't feel the market's ups and downs for the usual
reasons.
It’s not the Government's fault for investing. You have to build the interstate highways; the issue is that the subsequent
management was a complete disaster—just like what we see in construction, shipbuilding, and most other public
entities. These companies need to be moved under direct Government administration. Having one
less hand involved would guarantee better results.
What exactly did the Government do wrong? Why is Duke Energy operating at a profit???
We need to call that out. I can see where we're headed, but seeing it laid out like this, I
can hardly believe it.
The golden goose lays eggs all on its own; you just have to pick them up!!!
A cow should at least know how to help out. It seems nobody knows how to sell milk, nor electricity, nor oil,
nor medicine, nor mobile or landline phone service, and so on, and so forth.
that capital actually get loaned back to entrepreneurs? It doesn't happen here, which is
a massive mistake. Banks don't feel the market's ups and downs for the usual
reasons.
It’s not the Government's fault for investing. You have to build the interstate highways; the issue is that the subsequent
management was a complete disaster—just like what we see in construction, shipbuilding, and most other public
entities. These companies need to be moved under direct Government administration. Having one
less hand involved would guarantee better results.
What exactly did the Government do wrong? Why is Duke Energy operating at a profit???
We need to call that out. I can see where we're headed, but seeing it laid out like this, I
can hardly believe it.
The golden goose lays eggs all on its own; you just have to pick them up!!!
A cow should at least know how to help out. It seems nobody knows how to sell milk, nor electricity, nor oil,
nor medicine, nor mobile or landline phone service, and so on, and so forth.
Carl Foster8 said:We’re facing a double crisis here.
It's a combination of the structural shift from socialism to capitalism and this massive global economic meltdown.
Given the circumstances, I guess it's hard to expect any entrepreneur to take out investment loans when interest rates are this high. On top of that, labor costs are just too high to remain competitive. Rates are sky-high because the government and a handful of massive corporations are gobbling up most of the credit. The risk is just too much; with the way things are being run, you can't even predict what happens three months from now, let alone five or ten years down the road.
Would you really bet everything on the line under these conditions?
Would you hand even more money to the people who caused this mess in the first place?
I agree with the facts presented, but I always stop right at the
facts. That’s a passive way to look at problems.
The risk is huge and nobody knows what tomorrow looks like, or what the next five to ten years will bring. Period.
The circumstances are what they are—should we invest in anything? Probably not.
Should we give money to the people who dragged us here? Probably not.
So, what's next? Who is this person or group that’s actually going to fix this? Because surprisingly, even those
expected to provide a solution are spinning the same old story, acting as if they don't see themselves
as the architects of future economic policy or the leaders of some grand
economic project meant to pull us out of this hole.
I remember former Prime Minister Ivo Sanders saying at a press
conference, after presenting an economic plan that basically boiled down to
cutting spending: "If this plan fails, may God help us."
I get that he meant well, trying to help the public one way or another,
but it feels a bit pessimistic—like throwing up your hands
before the fight is over instead of looking for a new path.
I just hope this current or any future Government doesn't operate by that same
logic. I try to be an optimist.
Well, "Probably not" is the answer you were looking for, which is definitely the logical response given the situation.
But that’s the difference between a pessimist and an optimist, between a passive stance and an active one, and that’s what bothers me.
As entrepreneurs, we now know how we invested and where we messed up; clearly, we can't
do it alone without oversight, which leads to this:
If you ask me (the Government) for a loan, but your investment is unlikely to survive,
then I’m going to have to control you. That’s one way.
The second way is to skip the control part and just buy the business myself—much like how I once
sold one—so I can invest directly and manage it.
It’s becoming obvious that the State needs to secure its own interests
within this market game, which is nothing other than setting up
a new system called State capitalism.
That’s the system used by Germans, French people, English people, and so on.
The principle is simple: companies that are "golden geese" or vital to the stability of the Country
are owned by the State. Everything else—services, small businesses, retail, etc.—
can be privatized when a strong State, backed by robust laws,
dictates and sets the terms that everyone has to follow.
Personally, I have a better name for this new system that isn't weighed down by
ideological labels like feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or communism.
Simply put: "The State System of Governance and Management."
Carl Foster8 said:I guess someone on this subforum actually needs to understand economics.
Consumer credit is basically suicide; it’s what led us into debt slavery. It isn't about evil banks or foreign corporations, but rather arrogance and living on credit.Talking about self-employment under these conditions is pointless, especially since even
the biggest capitalists have pulled back—they aren't taking loans or investing their own money
into the businesses they previously started.
I'm talking about the Chinese way of manufacturing, which relies on high volume
with low unit prices. It's just pure math.
Qty of Goods Price Revenue
....1.......*....10...=10
...10......*......1...=10
You claim self-employment isn't worth discussing, yet you want the government (which mismanages resources) or private companies (who clearly see no profit in investing right now) to handle it.
What you described below is called economies of scale.
If you actually knew anything about economics, you wouldn't be wasting your breath trying to explain it to me.
The stuff we all know too well—or maybe we just pretend we don't.
The fundamental cause of a recession? It’s pretty simple: there just isn't enough cash circulating in the market.
Consumers are non-existent, unemployment is climbing, and more people are going unpaid by the day. Everything is just bone-dry.
More and more people are complaining. It looks like the capitalists have finally tightened their grip on everything sitting in their private accounts.
They aren't spending a dime, and they aren't investing either. Period.
That’s exactly why the shelves are empty and nobody's buying anything once we actually start heading into...
"Economic death spiral." Here we go again. Capitalists are just cranking out products to sit in warehouses instead of actually selling them to the market.
So, there's no collection coming in, which means there's zero capital left to buy raw materials and actually get things moving.
Another production cycle begins. Production shuts down, once again there are no paychecks, and once again we're just looking for more workers.
Back to square one. People are spending even less than before, and it’s obvious what's happening: yet another business gets shuttered for good.
The wave is hitting the banks now. Nobody is taking out new loans, and they can't even manage the old ones.
Banks are starting to feel the squeeze of illiquidity in the economy, which is becoming a real issue here.
It’s still not happening, which is a miracle in itself. Why? Because they're just remote concentrators, plain and simple.
Foreign banks.
The spiral is just getting wider, and now it’s starting to swallow the financial sector too. Same old story, same old nonsense.
It’s pretty obvious now: an entrepreneur is basically sawing off the branch they're sitting on if they stop paying their employees. And the banks? They’re doing the exact same thing when they cut off credit to business owners and everyday citizens alike. Everyone's just cutting themselves down.
That’s basically its entire reason for being.
The only thing keeping us from total disaster right now is a fresh injection of capital into the market.
I’ve got my fair share of gripes about how this country is being run, mostly because the government is supposed to actually be in charge of things.
The bedrock of all this political and economic chaos.
Thanks for clearing up the volume issue. I'm pretty sure that's what they're actually measuring.
The government exists specifically to ensure things like this never happen again.
The role of the state is to look out for its people and constantly strive for progress.
Clearly, we need a massive shift in mindset—moving away from this downward spiral
and finally heading upward.
The government shouldn't be acting like a stepmother, as some might say; instead, it needs to drive consistent economic growth and raise the standard of living for everyone.
From that perspective, here are the priorities:
- Force entrepreneurs to actually pay their workers what they’ve earned.
- Urgently create opportunities for the 350,000 unemployed and keep
opening new jobs for future generations.
- Jumpstart manufacturing by offering low-interest loans to business owners, capped at 2%.
- Provide citizens with low-interest consumer loans, also capped at 2%.
This stimulates spending and ensures that everything
produced by domestic industry actually gets bought.
Talking about self-employment under these conditions is pointless, especially when
even the biggest capitalists are hunkering down, refusing to take out loans or invest
their own capital back into the businesses they started.
I'm talking about the Chinese model of production, which relies on high volume
and low unit costs. It's simple math.
Qty of Goods Price Revenue
....1.......*....10...=10
...10......*......1...=10
The role of the state is to look out for its people and constantly strive for progress.
Clearly, we need a massive shift in mindset—moving away from this downward spiral
and finally heading upward.
The government shouldn't be acting like a stepmother, as some might say; instead, it needs to drive consistent economic growth and raise the standard of living for everyone.
From that perspective, here are the priorities:
- Force entrepreneurs to actually pay their workers what they’ve earned.
- Urgently create opportunities for the 350,000 unemployed and keep
opening new jobs for future generations.
- Jumpstart manufacturing by offering low-interest loans to business owners, capped at 2%.
- Provide citizens with low-interest consumer loans, also capped at 2%.
This stimulates spending and ensures that everything
produced by domestic industry actually gets bought.
Talking about self-employment under these conditions is pointless, especially when
even the biggest capitalists are hunkering down, refusing to take out loans or invest
their own capital back into the businesses they started.
I'm talking about the Chinese model of production, which relies on high volume
and low unit costs. It's simple math.
Qty of Goods Price Revenue
....1.......*....10...=10
...10......*......1...=10
restlesscrane152 said:🤦🤦🤦
Seeing comments like that, I realize there's seriously no point in even trying to argue...
Sorry, but that's just how it is. Our reality hits us in the face every single day, and that reality is this:
workers go months—three, five, ten, even a full year—working without seeing a single cent of their paycheck. Meanwhile, their
output is being sold on the other side, generating massive profits for someone else.
Where does all that money go? Poof. Into a magician's hat.
morsk!;33023081 said:Ashley Collins4 said:Nobody can pay you less than what you've earned.
If you think they're lowballing you, just quit and good luck finding something else. The thing is, the competition among the unemployed is so fierce that people would work for pennies. By staying, you're actually robbing the people who actually know how to value their skills and demand a fair wage.
You want to talk about getting paid less? Go ask any of those 70,000 people waiting on back pay, or the countless others
stuck on minimum wage or some mediocre middle-class salary.
I mean, if I think I'm being underpaid, I quit—so what? Good luck out there. You'll be stepping right into an army of
350,000 people with zero direction. Not long ago, all of them had jobs.
The sickness of privatization is exactly this: half the workforce got kicked to the curb overnight
for all sorts of reasons. The real sickness is that these guys swooped in and became "entrepreneurs" and owners
who don't even know how to park a car, let alone run a corporation. Exactly. I'm not giving a chance to the people who know how to raise their rates, because high societal standards aren't about raising prices—they're about lowering them. And profit has another side to the coin: higher volume. Produce more units at the same or lower price, and you get more profit.
Just look at the Chinese.
We never seem to learn from our mistakes. And I'm not even the one saying the stuff above; that was Carl Foster8.
restlesscrane152 said:🤦
Think about it. Why do people actually sell stuff or offer services? You think that baker at the corner shop is selling you bread just because he wants you to stay full? Or an ISP provides internet just so you can have a voice online? Does an employee work to boost their boss's bottom line, or is it all about grabbing that paycheck?
Adam Smith nailed this ages ago—most people are driven by their own interests. That's the genius part of a market economy. Because everyone is out there trying to get rich, the rest of society ends up with a massive variety of products and services to choose from. It just works!
The fundamental engine here is interest, and the core motivation is cash—the more
money, the better.
"I have nothing against it; I want to be wealthy too."
Let’s all aim to be rich, since I assume money is, generally speaking,
everyone's motivator. How do we get there?
Right now, we have two main groups, which are subdivided themselves. A small group
of the wealthy, split into rich, wealthier, and the ultra-rich.
And a larger group of the poor, split into poor, poorer, and the destitute.
Now, looking at your idealistic theories—whether a worker works to increase a
boss's profits or for their own salary, whatever. Mostly, they're working to bump up the employer's
profits.
The other idealistic view—that we get to enjoy a diverse selection of products because someone else
wants to get rich (honestly, thinking about it makes me want to sing from pure joy),
is also nonsense. Our daily reality is drastically different and speaks
for itself.
You want to know the difference between the rich and the poor? It's right there!!!
Ha, ha, ha. Someone might say, "Very clever, but without the poor, there wouldn't be any
rich people."
Harold Nelson6 said:Are you talking about Daily Fresh?
That isn't some foreign chain—it's domestic. And at the helm is Borislav Škegro, who is the perfect example of a "businessman" who never would have amounted to anything if he hadn't tangled himself up in politics. Then, following his political "career," he's simply incapable of running anything; everything he touches falls apart. Daily Fresh had all the ingredients for success—if nothing else, it had those fantastic locations (which no one else could get unless they were Škegro) for its restaurants.
Why am I bringing up Škegro? Because it proves that "entrepreneurs" born out of the government system don't know how to survive in a real market. There's no point in the government trying to "create jobs" if it's just going to end in a disaster like this.
What you're advocating for is really just a planned economy—where the government invests, hires people, pressures banks for lower interest rates, and manages everything.
I'm sorry, but we know for a fact that doesn't work.
We saw it during the recession: look at who the capitalists and bankers turned to in America.
They went to the U.S. Congress, begging, "Save us, there's no liquidity left in the market." The same thing happens here.
The American taxpayer opened their wallet and printed trillions of dollars. Based on what?
Based on forest resources used to make paper, which the Government
then assigned value to. So, in the end, when all else fails, it comes down to the State.
Building new companies is essentially investing in assets that we treat
as commodities, since they are still for sale. In our case, it wouldn't even be about printing
money just to patch holes; it would be done for a legitimate reason.
Carl Foster8;33010931 said:Who exactly are private entrepreneurs supposed to answer to, and why?
There’s a fundamental flaw in the capitalist model:
the capitalist is perpetually at odds with the Government because of their own self-interest.
That interest is incredibly simple and can be boiled down to half a sentence:
"I want to be rich."
Every future dispute regarding payments—to anyone or anything—is
rooted in that single claim, which then becomes an absolute principle.
The logic works like this: "If I give you less, I keep more."
And I want what I want, God knows what you get to keep, and if you even get anything at all. It's ME vs YOU,
it's EVERYONE vs THEM, and since they are just a minority, WHO CARES WHAT THE MAJORITY GETS???
The same logic applies elsewhere. Higher prices mean I get rich faster.
Wages for workers can't go up, and you can't hire new people, for that exact same reason.
No amount of forecasting helps here, because that isn't how management works.
Don't forget that the Government rules by passing laws, yet manages by following its own
regulations. To actually make that work, there has to be a system for oversight and punishing
those who ignore those laws. That's the whole point.
I think I've made myself clear. I'm responding to the entire text in the post; it's just a failure of manipulation.
Carl Foster8 said:The Country exists to set the framework for economic development, not to run the whole show itself.
You hit the nail on the head, but that's exactly where the issue lies. Who's supposed to actually execute that plan?
The people doing the work—private entrepreneurs—are all looking out for their own interests. They aren't
obligated to answer to anyone. How much they produce, how many units they turn out,
that's on them. Based on what they can manage, what the final price tag will be,
whether they export or not—all of it is their business. Paying taxes, setting wage levels, deciding
how much to pay employees... it's all up to them.
If the Government promises to create jobs, they basically put themselves in a corner where they have to
beg every single private business owner to hire just one extra person
just so they can keep their promise. It’s an illusion of control over companies they don't even own.
When interest rates need to drop, you have to sit down and negotiate with
the bankers. You can't just bark orders at banks and act like they are
tools in your pocket. That's just not how it works.
Harold Nelson6 said:The reason big investors aren't flocking here isn't because they're "evil"—it's because they see that the math just doesn't work under our current setup. If a private investment doesn't make sense right now, then a government-backed one won't fly either. The fix? We need to build the right environment so these deals actually become profitable—then it won't matter who pulls the trigger (though, personally, I don't think the government should be the one cutting the checks).
There’s another angle here—comparing the climate from fifteen years ago to what we're dealing with today.
Nobody sells off a top-tier racehorse when everyone's chasing it.
We cashed in on foreign investment back when it actually paid off.
Now, an investor is looking at a struggling economy that needs a massive jumpstart, but everyone
just wants everything handed to them on a silver platter. I was reading The New York Times in Washington, D.C. today, and they're reporting that
major international fast-food chains are closing up shop because the margins aren't there. What exactly do we expect
from people trying to build major corporations, especially when they're buried under taxes owed to the
Government? And the Government doesn't care about those losses, because nobody goes to war against themselves.
When the Government invests in a company, everything looks cheaper at the start.
So, we have no choice but to follow the old saying: look out for number one.
Things will turn around eventually.
ruggeddriver70 said:Alright, give me just one single, actual example of a "new startup" that a Government led by either Jadranka Kosor or Zoran Milanović would actually invest in. And honestly—would this "new startup" even turn a profit, or would it just be another massive money pit?
I’m speaking generally about the direction we need to take. Honestly, I doubt we'll see it happen,
whether from this administration or the next. When you have a government that only knows how to
liquidate assets—they've basically sold off the family silver at this point—it's hard to expect
them to start buying back what they already sold, let alone investing in
new companies to manufacture actual products.
Maybe it's because that cycle is baked right into the foundation of the system. You don't expect a
government supposedly oriented toward capitalism to suddenly veer off course,
take charge, and say, "Enough. This clearly isn't working. I'm taking control now."
Any party that actually ran on a platform like that during an election would win, hands down.
Miraculously, nobody is stopping them from doing exactly that!!! (Well, maybe someone is).