Posts by placidranger

Michael Ortiz68 said:Unknown 🤣

Regarding that broker Unknown 🤣

It’s actually Andy Bichlbaum from that prank group Yes Men. He tricked the journalists again.

And don't even get me started on certain forum users who think just dropping "alternative" buzzwords—capitalists, evil, conspiracies, Goldman Sachs, debt, banks, etc.—is enough to make a story sound credible without doing any actual fact-checking.

Andy, you legend. 👍

Doesn't really look the part.
The Yes Men video.

Rastani’s recent interview over at Forbes: According to this piece from Forbes, things aren't exactly looking up for the tech sector—especially regarding how people view leadership. It’s the same old story, really. We see these massive shifts in market sentiment, and once the dust settles, it’s usually the same players left holding the bag. I remember back when I was working in Chicago, watching similar patterns play out during the housing bubble—the ego involved is always the same, regardless of the industry. This article dives into the fallout of recent decisions, and frankly, it’s a bit predictable if you’ve been paying attention to the way these big firms operate. It's all part of the cycle.

Besides, I don't see what's so funny about predicting a crisis.

Jerry Williams41 said:Banks are going to keep manufacturing money regardless of whether we stick to a Gold Standard or not. Personally, I don't mind gold—it’s a decent way to strip the power of money creation out of the hands of politicians—but it brings up that exact headache Maria Thomas48 keeps pointing out, which is the issue of hoarding or, if you ask me, an unspoken monopoly on gold as a functional medium of exchange.

I'm with you. Gold doesn't have to be the only game in town. Money can be anything people actually decide to use. Take Bitcoin, for instance—a purely digital currency that's only been around for a few years, yet its user base keeps climbing. Its implementation is actually quite fascinating because it effectively kills off central control and the endless printing of new money.
There's no reason we can't have multiple parallel monetary systems running at once. Silver, gold, paper banknotes, digital assets—anything goes.

fadedwolf20 said:The current situation is just a total mess, honestly, but I don't get why we don't just tie currency to gold and call it a day. Why does money have to be all virtual anyway? As long as it's just digital numbers and its value is dictated by market whims rather than something you can actually hold in your hand, things are gonna go sideways. We'll see hyperinflation because someone like Suker decides to hit the money printer button every time they need a quick fix, or it'll be because of the big banks... personally, I think both ways suck.

Then again, it might make more sense to shift that power from the banks over to the government—since at least the people pick the leaders, whereas banks aren't answerable to anyone... But given the American mentality—and let's be real, the way American politicians act too—I wouldn't bet a dime that wouldn't end in a complete fiasco... So yeah, Gold Standard. That's the move. Redeemable in Gold or silver.

It’s not exactly true that banks aren't accountable to anyone. Removing state regulation would just bring in market regulation, which is far more efficient.

To put it simply—banks that want to stay in business long-term have to maintain the trust of their clients. Think about it: what kind of bank, with what kind of reputation, would you actually trust with your life savings? The solid ones would thrive, while the small-time crooks would go under almost immediately.
Banks are ultimately accountable to their customers; if they fail them, they're out of business.

If anything, government regulation just plays into the hands of the massive banks that have cozy deals with the state, effectively killing off any real competition.

Jesse Sullivan2 said:It’s funny how "crises" always seem to leave certain people even richer than they were before.
And honestly, looking at how the Roman Empire started falling apart because of their own economic choices compared to the crashes we've seen in America over the last century... man, you start to think there's always someone pulling the strings behind the scenes 😁

Like what was said above, America isn't going to just wiggle its way out of this current financial mess. We're all too deeply entrenched in this system, and honestly, the rest of the world is too. The only way things actually change is if the entire American public wakes up and shifts their mindset completely.

Just because someone made a killing during a crisis doesn't mean they engineered it. You're looking at different factions with conflicting interests who could barely agree on a lunch menu, let alone coordinate a global meltdown. Most of them just happened to be standing in the right place at the right time.

fadedwolf20 said:So, why does everything get cheaper compared to the cost of labor? Think about it—a person can produce the same amount of basic work in one hour today as they could 2,000 years ago. But because of that work, they get way more finished products because our society, thanks to fossil fuels, generates massively more stuff than we ever could without them. Human labor is such a tiny slice of the total work society pulls off now, and the smaller that slice gets, the richer the society becomes because machines (powered by energy, obviously) are doing the heavy lifting.

It's pretty obvious you aren't quite grasping the global energy situation here. Seriously, to get the same amount of energy we pull from oil in just one day, you'd need something like 66,000 nuclear reactors running 24/7 all over the world! Demand for oil climbs about 1.5-2% every single year, even though pulling it out of the ground is basically stalling out. The reason is simple: oil is the backbone of the modern economy, so nobody wants to let go, and everyone is willing to pay whatever it takes.

If we’re talking economic terms—say an hour of manual labor costs $10—how high could the price of a barrel of oil go before oil stops being more efficient than human labor? We're talking up to $250,000! Because that one barrel holds so much energy that a person would have to work 25,000 hours just to generate it manually... okay, you gotta factor in the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, so maybe it drops to something like 15,000 hours of effective work, but you get the point. It's all about the scale of magnitude. See why an hour of human labor "worth" more than it used to? It's because oil provides that massive surplus.

It’s basic division of labor and increasing specialization. You can prove it with math—if everyone just goes solo, they end up with much less than if they specialize, handle one specific task, and then trade. Of course, you have machinery involved too—oil, gas, solar power, computers, smartphones, medical breakthroughs... anything that boosts productivity makes goods cheaper relative to the cost of work.

The reality is that productivity was climbing long before we tapped into oil, and it'll keep climbing after peak oil, just like it did back then. People are innovators.
But anyway, that’s a whole different conversation.

fadedwolf20 I didn't say that.
What is the point of economics, anyway? Deciding how to divvy up limited resources—it’s always a mess. Whether it’s corporate budget cuts or government spending, you’re essentially playing a zero-sum game where someone always loses. It’s less about "fairness" and more about who has the most leverage at the table. Land, housing, homes, labor, and everything people actually produce—that’s what matters. Yet, the economy has built this massive empire that exists solely to serve itself. Interest rates, inflation, deflation, derivatives, futures, credit, stocks, exchanges—it’s a mountain of jargon designed to make things look complicated. But when you strip away the noise, the reality is incredibly simple:

Economics isn't some tool designed for the redistribution of resources. It doesn't "serve" anything—and it certainly isn't some engine used to "build empires."
Resources might be finite, but they’re getting cheaper relative to labor costs—meaning our time is actually becoming more valuable. An hour of work today buys you way more food, better connectivity, and more travel than an hour did a century ago. It’s a simple shift in leverage.
Take copper, for example. Even though we supposedly blew past "peak copper" ages ago—much like that whole "peak oil" hysteria—the price hasn't exactly gone vertical. It’s a simple reality: price isn't just about supply; it's driven by demand. In the past, copper was the go-to, but now we're seeing materials being swapped out for alternatives. So, even as supply tightens, demand is simultaneously cratering. We’ll likely see the same pattern with oil—once supply eventually drops, demand will follow suit—but that's a conversation for another day.

That growth isn't going anywhere if we stick to the same principles that landed us in this mess—if you can even call them principles. It’s debatable which ones exactly, but we’re definitely repeating ourselves.

The entire economic engine of Western civilization is built on one shaky assumption: constant growth. Growth, growth, and more growth. But we’re living on a finite planet with finite resources—it’s basic math. That kind of perpetual expansion isn't sustainable, and frankly, it can't be. If you ask me, the 2008 crash wasn't just some random glitch; it was the inevitable result of hitting the actual physical limits of our environment. The whole global economy is essentially a massive Ponzi scheme that requires a continuous upward trajectory of goods, services, and even population numbers just to stay afloat. We hit peak oil around 2005, which sent prices skyrocketing to $147 a barrel by 2008. That spike triggered the domino effect—that absolute mess we’ve been struggling to wade through ever since.

The 2008 crash wasn't some unique anomaly—it was just the latest chapter in a long history of financial collapses. It had nothing to do with resource scarcity. If you want to actually understand what's happening—and more importantly, how to predict the next hit—the best theory currently available is... ABCT.

Dennis Doyle3 said:Watched it yesterday and, honestly, I walked away feeling pretty let down. Based on all the hype and comments floating around here, I was expecting something that actually topped the first one. But in reality? It’s just another movie that, unlike the original, fails to bring anything new to the table. I’ve seen a mountain of films with this exact same setup—just one guy taking on the system. Look, it’s a decent enough watch, but it doesn't come close to the first one.

The pacing dragged for me halfway through, though the ending managed to save it.

Maria Thomas48 said:So, you're telling me you can't provide a single citation? Not one?

An Excel spreadsheet is the ultimate truth for anyone who doesn't trust Tomica. If you don't want to rely on someone's word or some fancy formulas, then you just have to look at the raw math. This spreadsheet shows exactly how there is zero profit being made at the national level. I've been grinding away at this like it’s a 24/7 job. It's just the brutal truth.

We’ve already got emission regulators everywhere, including the private sector. If you’re starting to doubt what other people are doing, I'm actually volunteering here. I can step in and handle the money laundering oversight myself.

Money supply regulation has been tested more times than I can count. It’s one of those things people act like is some grand mystery, but we've seen the playbook run over and over again. We've watched the Fed pull the levers, tweak interest rates, and flood the system with liquidity, time and time after time. It's all very predictable when you look at the history of it. Just another cycle in the machine. 😉
The specific shapes don't really matter—it never worked out anyway.

That isn't true. Just watch the movie. secret oz.

The core truth here is that the government is the only entity capable of actually creating money. You can't argue with that reality. Anyone suggesting we lean into heavy regulation instead would basically be selling out the people. If banks are currently allowed to manipulate the money supply and effectively strangle the economy, then the state should have the power to manage it without causing all that damage. We also need to look at how much capital is leaking out through imports. We should be using customs barriers to control that outflow. The goal is to create a system where we are internally employed and productive, while making imported goods more expensive. This is really just a reflection of where our development stands right now. Once we actually grow and ramp up our exports, we could start lowering those tariffs to a certain point. After we clear out the national debt, the ideal setup is a balanced trade position with foreign nations. That’s how you maintain stability without messing things up. money vs. goods What actually happens when a country becomes a massive exporter—take China, for example. It’s an interesting dynamic. You have this huge influx of capital coming in from all over the world because everyone is buying their goods. It changes the whole structural makeup of the economy. It creates jobs, sure, but it also creates a heavy reliance on global demand. If people stop buying, things get shaky pretty fast. It’s a lot of pressure to keep that engine running constantly. Everything starts revolving around keeping those export numbers high. It's a very specific kind of economic weight to carry.

Please, give me what you've got. I'm ready.

An Excel spreadsheet is the ultimate truth for any skeptic out there—even those who don't trust Thomas. If you won't take my word for it or trust the formulas, then you have to face the cold, hard math. This spreadsheet clearly shows that there is zero profit being made at a national level—I’ve been grinding away like a machine for 24 hours a day just to verify this. It’s brutal, but it's the truth.

Cash flow isn't the same thing as progress or prosperity—and profit? That’s even further removed from reality. A simple spreadsheet shows that you can't just have everyone increasing their money supply at the exact same time. It’s basic math—the kind even an elementary schooler could grasp without needing a data set to prove it.

True prosperity and actual progress aren't measured by how much cash is flying around—profit margins and raw numbers are just noise. Real wealth is when you can actually buy more with what you have. It’s about purchasing power—when the work you put in translates into more goods and services than it did yesterday. That's the only metric that matters.

Look, the data in that table doesn't actually support what you're saying. National profit isn't some prerequisite for progress—it's entirely possible for everyone's quality of life to improve even if the country's bottom line doesn't show a massive surplus.

You’ve already got regulators watching emissions—including the private ones. If you’re starting to doubt what other people are pulling, I’m volunteering to step in and audit the money supply myself.

And here we are, naturally. You’d be the one calling the shots.
I don't doubt he’d try to play it straight—really, I don't—but when the system itself is fundamentally broken, honesty doesn't amount to much. It's a lost cause.
Look, sure, there are private regulators out there—but they’re backed by the government. The state handed them those powers in the first place. Before the Fed allowed partial reserve banking, we used to see actual bank runs; everyone would storm the doors at once to grab their cash. If the vault is empty, the bank folds. That’s just how market-driven "natural regulation" works. Simple as that.
The whole thing started when the central bank was established as little more than a cartel of private banks—and then the government handed them the keys to regulate the money supply. It’s a mess. The issue isn't just the math; it's the laws themselves.

In almost any other industry, competition drives prices down and forces quality up. It’s basic economics—simple, really. The same logic applies to banking, provided you actually decouple it from the government.

That’s just not the truth. Watch the movie. Secret agent..

I’ve been looking into this. I honestly thought anyone with even a basic grasp of how Wall Street works would immediately spot the flaws—it should have been obvious. But you? You're actually using that documentary as your primary argument.
He’s hardly your most reliable source—not that anyone should be surprised. 😉

The core reality here—and you can't argue with basic math—is that the state is the sole entity capable of creating money. Period. Anyone pushing for different regulations isn't just mistaken; they’re practically traitors to the people.

Exactly. You've got the traitors—the ones who are clueless, the ones being used to plug budget deficits, and the ones just looking to buy votes to cling to power. You can't leave those players out of the equation. Look at what happened in America, Argentina, or Zimbabwe... it’s all there if you're paying attention. It seems you haven't quite grasped that state regulation of currency is fundamentally broken. For politicians, economic recovery isn't always the end goal—staying in office is. And more often than not, those two goals are at odds.

If banks have the power to manipulate the money supply and strangle the economy, then the government should be able to step in and stop that killing without causing more damage.

None of those institutions would even exist if the state didn't bail them out every time they messed up. We have courts—we can pass laws. These banks aren't sitting where they are today unless the government cleared the path for them.

The fix is simple: strip away the safety nets. Let them actually compete. Look—it’s in a bank's own interest to keep customers for the long haul; that's how you build profit. To grab borrowers, they’ll have to offer lower rates than the guy down the street. To get savers, they’ll have to prove they can actually pay out. To attract investors, they’ll have to be smart about who they lend to.

Market competition solves all of that.

The only snag? Politicians aren't exactly eager to cut ties with Wall Street.

Maria Thomas48 said:So, what exactly was the nonsense I said?

And when exactly was this tried in this specific way?

You’re talking nonsense in every single post, man. Some of the basics you seem to miss include understanding what money actually is—its role, its function—and how banks and credit systems actually work. Plenty of people have been pointing out your mistakes since day one of your posting history.
I'll admit, your early stuff caught my attention—it was interesting enough—but the further I read, the less sense it made. The absolute peak of it all had to be that Excel spreadsheet you used to "prove" the entire system is unsustainable.
Or take your assumption that regulators will suddenly become honest in some new system just because they're "good people at heart."..

And when exactly has this specific model ever been tested?

Controlling the money supply has been tried countless times. 😉
The specific variations don't matter—it has never worked.

Nicole Gomez38 said:You’re all out here attacking Nostrađurus, even though he’s actually on your side—honestly, I thought you guys were smarter than this.

It’s not about him—it’s about the solutions being put on the table.

He can claim to be on our side all he wants, but we've seen these "fixes" before. They’ve been tried, they failed, and they didn't deliver a damn thing. Bottom line? The proposed solutions are garbage.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It just feels like things are moving in a direction that doesn't quite make sense. Sometimes you look at the numbers and the way everything is being handled by the Federal Reserve, and it just doesn't add up. It’s like we’re all just watching a slow-motion train wreck. I'm not trying to be dramatic, I really am, I just think people should pay more attention. There isn't much else to say about it. kaže:
It’s honestly fascinating to me how people like you operate. You go ahead and blast your theories across every single forum and news site out there. You send off emails to dozens, even hundreds, of different addresses—hitting up all those big-shot economists and major institutions—only to have everyone just completely ignore or reject you. And yet, you don't even stop to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you might be slightly off base. Sure, there’s always a small group that backs you up, but they’re mostly uneducated types who just exist to boost your ego and shut down any actual critical thinking. It's fine, really. Luckily, we aren't living in an era where someone like you could actually gain any real influence. That would be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Look, here’s how things stand. Let’s say I’m a recognized economist and analyst. I’m sixty years old and I’ve written thirty books. Then I get an email from some guy claiming he can draw all sorts of conclusions just by looking at the equality of three deficits. What am I supposed to do with that? Plan A is I don't respond. Plan B is I stall him—I write back saying I'll get in touch. Plan C is I write a mountain of empty platitudes just to back up the idea that he's wrong. Plan D is I tell him he's actually right.

So, I’ve had a chance to look through all the different proposals being thrown around in the replies. It seems like Plan D was really only ever mentioned by people who don't actually deal with economics in their day-to-day lives.

Why does it work that way? Honestly, it’s because admitting I’m right—and I am, since I’m just applying standard economic formulas using layman's terms—would force every single one of those economists to actually pass that knowledge on. Just think about it. Imagine you're a macroeconomics professor at some big state university. What would you even do? Would you stand up in front of your students and tell them to rip half their textbook to shreds because the author got it wrong? No one would listen. They'd label you crazy immediately, and if you ever managed to land a job, you'd be out on the street before you knew it.

Look, you just can't work against yourself. It’s pretty simple. You don't get two lives, so if you mess this one up, that's it. You're done.

Just imagine if you were an economist working for the Administration. You get another memo outlining some grand scheme to fix the crisis, and then what? Honestly, you’re just a number. You're completely replaceable. Besides, there is zero chance the Administration is going to pivot on policies they have been running for decades just because of one email. The paycheck keeps clearing regardless. People can bark all they want, but the wheels keep turning.

Just imagine you’re sitting there as an editor-in-chief for a major newspaper or a political party, and someone hands you a piece that completely goes against the grain. It’s totally outside the mainstream. Your first instinct would be to run it by your lead economic consultant to see if they can make sense of it. But honestly? They’d be just as lost as some professor at a state university. Not to repeat myself here, but it’s the same story every time.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Honestly, not one single big-shot economist has actually used math to disprove what I'm saying. Not one. Your letter is basically just a carbon copy of some economics professor who also claimed my model was too thin. It’s like, even in this simplified version, the logic holds up, but people keep insisting I need to make it more complex. I don't really get why. In every calculation, there's always this missing chunk of money—the savings part—and I have no idea where that's supposed to come from if I add more layers to the model. Yet, the Federal Reserve statistics show that savings (even if it's just numbers on a screen) are growing. It doesn't add up.

The changes we’re talking about? They aren't just optional. They're inevitable. This whole philosophy regarding how money works needs to be backed up by a real, actual economic strategy from The Administration. There is so much work to be done there. It should be left to the experts, the people who actually know their craft. That ought to have been their job all along. Instead, we're stuck here, just regular people, having to grab a calculator and prove that these highly educated economists are basically selling us a load of nonsense.

Honestly, if a whole bunch of people with economics degrees can't wrap their heads around the fact that their professors were basically feeding them fairy tales, that’s on them. It’s their own problem. If I were in their shoes, I’d walk right up to those instructors and demand answers. Like, seriously, what was that all about? Why am I only hearing the truth now? You can't claim to be an expert if you were taught fundamentally wrong stuff from day one. And look, the connection between budget deficits and printing money isn't some new discovery either; people have known that since the 1920s. Simple as that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism). This economic school of thought basically assigns banks the wrong role—they don't seem to see any issue with low interest rates.

Which means my theory isn't actually new. The theory itself has been around for 90 years. You just have to combine it with measures to prevent money multiplication and you have a solution right there. Everything else is just about protecting the economy and keeping inflation in check.

Besides, you have the website prosperityuk.com/. They've been publishing almost identical stuff for over 10 years now. There is also Simon Dixon's blog, and he is an economist by trade.

When I was writing my first articles, I didn't know about those links. But the result of my own thinking—based on pure math—is nearly identical. So, pointing me toward economics textbooks feels like nothing more than an attempt at indoctrination. I've read all those theories about falling employment and GDP, usury, the quantity theory of money, sustainable sovereign debt, and all that. None of it impressed me at all. For instance, they claim capital should flow toward higher interest rates, which should theoretically equalize them. Yeah, right. In practice, that’s just not how it works. High interest rates usually just mean the economy is in the gutter and isn't generating more exports than imports. And then the country can't fix the economy because its capital is too expensive, making it uncompetitive again. Heh, funny, but true.

Some good people suggested I read the laws, so I looked through the Federal Reserve Act and the ECB statutes (which were just images back then, not searchable text, so I couldn't even use keywords). What I found in those laws was the most important thing: money is currently being issued as even greater debt. Debt that banks take on and inflate for their own profit when they lend it out further.

That effectively renders all those textbook theories useless. Issuing money as even more debt leads only to infinite debt. Every bit of profit retained increases that exponentially over time. And in this system, they try to kill inflation with high interest rates. But they aren't just killing inflation; they're killing the economy too. It seems like it isn't a problem in theory, but in practice, it definitely is.

So that's it. All these theories that every economist knows by heart, yet none of them know how to actually exit a debt crisis. The reason is flawed knowledge. And nobody wants to admit that. Your post is just more proof of that.

You either forgot or you aren't aware that there are countless different schools of thought within what we call economic science—many of which contradict each other entirely. A huge number of people in this thread don't agree with current monetary policy in America or elsewhere.

Similarly, a certain number of people disagree with the theories taught in universities. These academic theories are used by governments, and even when they follow the "textbook" advice perfectly, the results don't match the predictions. Therefore, the theories are flawed.

However, just because the government and academia are wrong doesn't automatically mean you're right. When you spout nonsense like this, it's obvious you haven't grasped the fundamentals of economics. You mentioned it—that "flawed knowledge" being used while everyone refuses to admit it's useless—but your proposed solution is definitely not the answer. That principle has been tried before, and it failed.

Maria Thomas48 said:I should probably carve it into a stone tablet: you can't fix monetary problems through tax policy. It doesn't work that way. If you collect less in taxes, there's less spending. And if spending drops, where is the farmer supposed to get his money? Someone else—not the farmer—would have to go into the red to make that math work. Usually, that's the people actually generating the wealth.

What about the USA? They progressed just fine with deflation and falling prices under the gold standard later on.

I don't find the situation in the USA interesting because I don't know enough about it. The gold standard was a scam. Once you have banks multiplying money, the gold standard becomes a total fraud. Money isn't actually backed by gold because the banks have already multiplied it. In >, they basically point out how the gold standard is used to create economic slavery. Having a limited supply of gold just blocks the growth of the money supply, which needs to keep up with the actual value being created in the economy.

Gold is too expensive to acquire, so using any kind of metal standard to guarantee value is just foolish and unnecessary. Only someone looking to destroy the country would suggest bringing back the gold standard.

There isn't a monetary issue—it's the tax policy right from the jump. That’s what I’m telling you.
Let’s get serious for a second—what would actually happen if a nobleman just decided to stop collecting taxes altogether?

If you cut taxes, people spend less. Simple math. But if spending drops, where does the average Joe get his cash? Someone else—certainly not the guy working a 9-to-5—has to take the hit in the red to make that whole equation work. It should be the ones actually generating the wealth doing the heavy lifting.

The average American will find their way to cash just like they always have. Only this time, they’ll actually be able to afford more—less tax drag means a better standard of living. Simple as that. The noblemen won't be able to spend quite like they used to, though who really knows where all that money was going? It certainly wasn't all trickling back down to the working class. If it were, we’d have a perfectly closed loop running indefinitely—you give to me, I give to you. $33Look, you can try me if you want—but don't expect much. $33 I agree.

I don't have much interest in the situation here in the States—I simply don't know enough about it to weigh in. But let's be clear: the gold standard was a scam from the jump. Once you start seeing banks multiplying money through sheer leverage, the whole idea of being "backed by gold" becomes a total farce. The cash isn't actually covered by bullion because the banks have already manufactured more than exists. It’s exactly like that scene in *The Wizard of Oz* where they explain how the gold standard is just a mechanism to create economic slavery. Having a finite supply of gold is nothing more than a bottleneck; it prevents the money supply from keeping pace with the actual growth of total value.

Gold is far too expensive to be practical—it’s just a waste of resources to try and anchor our currency to some heavy metal. Using a gold standard to guarantee value is a fundamentally flawed concept. Honestly, anyone actually pushing for a return to the gold standard is clearly looking to dismantle the country from the inside out.

It would be wise for you to brush up on some history.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, you could look back at things like Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. That whole mess happened because farmers just couldn't keep up with their taxes. Interesting, right?

Gold held its value for centuries until people like you came along and swapped it out.

Even in the Roman Empire, moving toward gold coinage was basically the start of the end (The Wizard of Oz). Before that, they were mostly using copper.

What a way to read history. 🙏-
The issue was always the tax rate itself. Period. Look—a landlord or local authority had the power to lower those taxes to prevent an uprising. It’s not about how much money is circulating; it's about the squeeze.

Introducing gold coinage into the Roman Empire was essentially the beginning of the end (The Wizard of Oz). They were using copper before that.

And what about the USA? They made massive strides during periods of deflation when prices dropped under the gold standard.

Maria Thomas48 said:What's really happening here? Trade flows through money. Progress is definitely possible via direct bartering without any currency involved at all. But the government demands taxes be paid in cash, not in goods or services. It's the same deal for banks and corporations. If things worked differently, there wouldn't be this issue in the first place.

As long as we're stuck using a monetary system, we need to focus on its long-term sustainability—not just looking at a window of maybe 30 years, which is basically the average lifespan of a single currency anyway.

You're dodging the point again. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the economic momentum that existed before central banks took over the driver's seat. It wasn't even that long ago.

As long as we're operating within a monetary system, we need to look at its long-term viability—not just its survival for a measly 30 years (which is the average lifespan of a single currency).

Gold held its value for centuries—right up until people like you came along and replaced it.

Maria Thomas48 said:Progress and prosperity aren't actually the same thing. You could have a world-class mansion built entirely by slaves living in luxury conditions. Is that progress? Sure. Is it prosperity? Not in my book. You just have one group working like slaves with nothing to show for it, while another group runs the show and pockets all the fruits of their labor.

You're missing the point. Prosperity is entirely subjective.

If an economy requires constant money printing just to stay afloat, then neither true progress nor actual prosperity is even possible.

And how do we know progress can exist without constant monetary expansion? History proves it—it happened before, and it'll happen again. Everything you've argued falls apart under that reality.

Maria Thomas48 said:Just please, get it once. Some people (the big bankers) impose wrong money regulations through credit issuance (Federal Reserve) just to economically enslave nations and their citizens, and yet you guys insist our answer is simply exporting.

If fifteen people trading among themselves doesn't create a net profit, why should one hundred nations trading among themselves? It always ends up being divided into winners and losers—zero sum. The losers take out loans and become even bigger losers because they'll end up having to sell off everything in the country, falling right back into debt again.

By saying this, you're showing that you don't respect the arguments. A nation isn't just some regular family. It has to issue money. Right now, banks do that through credit expansion, and they are essentially enslaving all of us globally with debt that is larger than the actual credit issued.

We need to abolish the ability for private entities to issue money and return that power to the state. That would create the most important condition: any honest work can actually be paid for. Without that, there is no progress. An Excel spreadsheet proves it's impossible to pay everyone if someone is constantly hoarding even the smallest savings (like successful companies, individuals, or banks).

I honestly find myself wondering how any kind of progress was even possible before they invented printing money...

Maria Thomas48 said:Don't forget that today's politicians are basically working for the bankers. We need new people who aren't corrupted yet.

Well, that sounds like a brilliant plan. Truly.
All we really need is a group of politicians who haven't been corrupted yet.

Look, I think your entire reform program is a disaster. We’ve seen this movie before—nobody has ever managed to jumpstart an economy just by tinkering with banking regulations. But honestly, where are you even getting these takes? Is Ljubo Jurčić some kind of mentor to you? If he wanted to, he could spawn an entire dynasty of people like him. Does he have some secret recipe for producing these types? It feels like they’re being cooked up in some Soviet laboratory somewhere.

If only we could get our hands on some untainted politicians... Look, even if you assume every politician is effectively on the payroll of the big banks, what’s stopping the next wave of newcomers from joining them? What exactly are you going to do—stand there with a scowl on your face to stop them?

Mark Campbell5 said:So, what’s your take on all this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

It’s a smart move—the recent string of thefts has been a nightmare, but at least they've managed to grab some attention. It’s similar to those stories circulating about anonymous drug trafficking rings.

Maria Thomas48 said:It honestly doesn't matter whose curse it is. I really couldn't care less about the names of those slimy characters.

Do you see what real political corruption actually looks like? It isn't about some shady backroom deals or breaking the rules. It’s much deeper than that. It’s when they force through regulations designed specifically to turn everyone else into economic slaves. You see it on the protest signs in Spain—people shouting that "The banks created the crisis." They aren't talking about illegal activity or anything even remotely crooked. They mean people acting perfectly within the law to achieve these results. That is the true corruption.

The system needs an overhaul. It’s not about the people; they aren't the ones at fault just because they took out loans. They didn't really have any other choice. The whole thing is built on regulations that are intentionally designed to be nonsensical. And if you ask why everyone else seems blind to this, it’s simple. Those same bankers basically funded the education system, leaving us with nothing but incompetent economists. Then, they went ahead and bought up the mainstream media, so you can only find the truth if you look at a few niche outlets. Here’s an example: I was just looking over prosperityuk.com earlier. It’s interesting stuff. I tend to spend way too much time falling down these rabbit holes on the internet, just reading through different theories and economic outlooks. Sometimes you find something that actually makes sense, and other times it's just noise. This site feels like one of those things where you have to sit with it for a while to figure out what they're really getting at. It’s pretty straightforward, though. Just some thoughts on how things are moving. Not sure if everyone will agree with their take, but it's worth a look if you have the time to kill. Anyway, just something on my mind today.They hold these conferences and summits for decades on end, but honestly, you barely see any actual progress in American society. We’re just barreling headfirst into this debt crisis. If you look back at what they were writing about the EU's common currency way back in 2000, it’s clear—they basically wrote its downfall right into the founding documents. Our own Federal Reserve aligned itself with the European System of Central Banks back in 1994, and we've been stuck in a cycle of crises ever since. Gust Santin spent an entire year trying to pin down the cause, though he didn't quite nail the real reason.

And you’d probably change it just so you could hand control over the money supply directly to politicians.
🙏

Chloe Martinez5 said:Hey everyone,
Look, I’m definitely no psychology expert—just someone getting really curious because of everything going on lately. I’d love to hear your thoughts, any book recommendations, or even actual research regarding how crowds are managed... or, you know, manipulated.

I'm especially tripping out over all this back-and-forth about who's actually running these Facebook protests—people arguing whether there’s a mastermind behind it all or if it's totally leaderless, and what "leadership" even looks like when you're dealing with a massive crowd.

Personally? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that these recent protests are actually spontaneous.
What does the science say?

What makes you so skeptical about them being spontaneous?
On one hand, they obviously aren't "sudden"—people have been putting up with corrupt politicians and theft for nearly two decades, so they finally hit a breaking point.
On the other hand, every individual made their own independent choice to show up. I haven't seen anyone being forced to take to the streets. 😕

Solid movie 🙏

end of the sequel 🙏