Posts by Gregory Williams7

Good craftsmanship doesn't fail just because a competitor opens a shop next door. Failure happens when the work itself is subpar. A skilled professional will always find clients through word-of-mouth. That is the fundamental truth: poor quality fails, and it deserves to. Think about video rental stores. That model is obsolete, yet those businesses can evolve by offering new services and modernizing. A truly modern data provider will never go under. It is the outdated shops, still clinging to VHS tapes, that will disappear. Someone always has to be the weakest link. And it is always those weak links who cry foul, claiming the world is conspiring against them. When a business becomes highly profitable and reaches the top of the pyramid, competition inevitably encroaches, and the government collects its taxes. That tax revenue eventually trickles back down to the bottom of the pyramid to support the average citizen—whether they are receiving a paycheck from the government or subsidies for farming or shipbuilding.
The money simply circulates; it is collected at the top and redistributed to the bottom. This has been the mechanism for centuries, and nothing has changed. Credit expansion is currently a much larger issue in the US than it is in America. Here, interest rates were kept very high, and Rohatinski ensured we stayed on track. We can still settle our debts if we act sensibly and cut costs. If the government started printing dollars recklessly, it would trigger massive inflation. This would lead to the bankruptcy of almost every individual and business holding foreign-denommed debt. It would completely destroy domestic manufacturing, leaving everyone in a position similar to being an unskilled laborer looking for seasonal work abroad. One must use common sense.

The fundamental truth is this: universal profit is an impossibility. If everyone were profiting equally, competition would vanish, rewards would lose their meaning, and progress would grind to a halt. Why should we expect otherwise? In a functioning economy, those who perform better naturally secure more than those who underperform. The very objective is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services; pure accumulation is essentially "penalized" by the market mechanism.

Therefore, the fact that profit isn't distributed to everyone is actually a positive outcome. It is the intended design. That is precisely where you must begin your analysis. The capable move forward, while the inefficient fade away.

But then we run straight into another issue 🙂 because you're simply performing the exact same action, just in reverse.
The end result? An artificial spike in gold prices relative to the dollar—which, given the current trajectory, seems inevitable.

Perhaps you are right... yes, I finally see the truth. Rohatinski is insane, everyone at the Federal Reserve is out of their minds, and the ministers along with their advisors are equally deranged. Absolutely no one offers a single coherent argument (even though you have five pages of arguments written right here). Analysts at the university, everyone on this subforum—everyone is crazy. Only you are the wise one in this world who truly understands the reality of the situation!

Do you also see something that isn't quite right?

Take some time to read the Statute of the Federal Reserve when you can. Perhaps you will notice that the primary task of the Federal Reserve is price stability. Yet, you think you've found the solution by printing money to fix every systemic issue. Please...
I am being serious; this isn't an economics discussion anymore. This belongs in the alternative theories section. We are talking about cultists or Masons or whatever they call themselves, people obsessed with control. If you move this topic there, you might actually find followers. Here, people will simply mock you.

I must admit, I am genuinely, truly fascinated by your stubbornness.
Let me ask you sincerely once more: who has to tell you that what you wrote is nonsense before you believe it is nonsense? Name just one person, anyone at all, and I will personally translate and email your ideas to them if necessary. I am not joking; I am genuinely curious if you respect any authority higher than yourself, or if you consider yourself the absolute authority on this matter?
As for your career, if you haven't chosen a path yet, you would make a perfect kamikaze pilot. In any case, stay away from economics. I predict a swift and painful end to your professional life.

P.S. My mind is critical enough to recognize when someone is peddling garbage disguised as "expertise." All your citations and conclusions can be ignored the moment the core idea of printing money is revealed. That is pure nonsense.
There is a thread titled "CURRENCY DEVALUATION vs Status Quo" started by a freelancer last year. Go through those seventy pages of discussion. Either close this thread or move it to the alternative section so you stop embarrassing yourself; this has gone too far. I honestly don't know how you sleep at night knowing what you write here.

Hehe 😁 So, you think you’re being clever. You believe you’re some enlightened expert in your position, yet you still refuse to see reason. Tell me, please, who would it take to convince you that you've lost your grip on reality? Everything you're writing here is nothing more than a heap of nonsense. In my opinion, this belongs on an alternative forum rather than cluttering up a discussion about the economy.

And yes, truth will set you free... so perhaps pick up a book.

The idea that there won't be enough money to repay loans... good grief. 🙂 That is quite possibly the most foolish thing I have ever heard. What happens when that portion of the loan is repaid? Does the money simply vanish? No, it doesn't. It flows right back into the system through various stimulus measures and settles at the bottom of the pyramid. Money has been circulating this way for centuries, and now you think you've discovered something revolutionary? My goodness. 🙂 Please ask the moderator to move this thread to the alternative section. 🙂

Could you explain to me why certain goods see price increases during periods of inflation?

Pike makes a valid point. We constantly see enthusiasts from the Alternative subforum drifting in here, acting as if they’ve suddenly cracked the code to the global crisis. After the twentieth time you hear the same thing, you can't really expect people to have the energy to explain it all over again like they did at the start. You simply burn out. It is the same cycle, repeating itself endlessly.

neonhound10 said:Honestly, I think the biggest mistake anyone can make is closing themselves off to a different perspective...

There was a crucial point mentioned just a few posts up, and it’s something we shouldn't overlook: the idea that "people are unpredictable idiots." When you factor in that kind of irrationality, any model becomes incredibly hard to pin down. It’s likely that trying to account for such an erratic variable makes their entire calculation fall apart, which probably turns into a massive headache for their statistical modeling😬

Regarding the initial point, please refrain from attacking me. I have listened patiently to your views, read everything you wrote, and did my absolute best to explain why certain things won't work quite the way you imagined.

As for the other matter, take my word for it: people are not idiots.😉 They might act foolishly as a crowd, but they aren't mindless. They know what serves them and what doesn't. It simply comes down to which group holds the majority. Is it the spenders or the savers? One side will inevitably face the consequences. Which one? That remains to be seen.

Furthermore, since our debts are held in dollars, someone printing more dollars means nothing to us. Even if the Fed decided to print more, it wouldn't change our situation because our national reserves are held in dollars.

Flawed logic leads to flawed ideas. Eventually, a leader will emerge who attempts to use the Federal Reserve's reserves to pay off external debt. And then, we see the fallout.

I have listened to your opinions and attempted to highlight the errors. Now, I suggest you try to understand an opposing view and think for yourselves...

Maria Thomas48 said:So, I guess that's the trick, right? How to just... not answer the questions. I don't know. I just know that someone out there wrote something about this once, and you're out here looking for it. Of course they did. Someone definitely wrote it.

So, I finally got around to ordering a copy of dirkati Krueger's "Macroeconomics." Just as I was digging into the details, I stumbled right into that mathematical derivation. It looks like they’ve opened it up to the public community now.

I could probably go on about all the ways people might be pulling profit through indirect channels, but someone else already covered that ground earlier. You should probably just go back and read what was said before.

I've got a much tougher nut to crack here, and that's inflation within an exclusively credit-based system. I didn't really give it much thought at first, but honestly, it seems like the easiest way to prove the whole thing is just heading straight for a disaster.

Just focus on that steady, long-term inflation target. That's really all we need to look at.

There’s this theory floating around that the government actually turns a profit specifically because it doesn't just print money whenever it feels like it. It's an interesting way to look at things. Basically, by not just running the presses constantly, the state maintains its value and builds up its standing. It's all about that restraint.

I already laid out my projections: we’re looking at 3.5% inflation and bank interest rates sitting at 6%. I don't see what part of that isn't clear.

Let's take this one step at a time. If you just walk away now, you're basically admitting you can't prove your support. Either that, or you could just put together your own projection so we can actually see where you're coming from.

If inflation eats away at the value of money, then you basically need a larger volume of cash just to maintain the same real purchasing power. It’s pretty straightforward. The whole premise here is that we're trying to keep the actual, real-world money supply constant.

So, where does the money actually come from in the current system? It comes from credit, investments, budget deficits, and exports. But when you look at the budget deficit, that’s essentially just more credit. And as for exports—specifically the net difference between what we export and what we import—we can basically just assume that part is zero for the sake of this argument.

What are the actual permanent drivers behind inflation here? You’ve got trade surpluses and credit, though credit only works for so long before the debt levels get messy. A trade surplus isn't exactly a permanent fix or a universal solution for every nation. I mean, China is still pulling it off for now, but I honestly don't think that's going to last much longer. So, at the end of the day, credit remains the go-to move for most countries.

How does credit actually drive inflation? It’s pretty straightforward. When you take out a loan, you start buying stuff—everything from groceries to cars—and that cash stays moving through the economy. But here's the thing: not everyone can pay their loans back at the same time. If they did, we wouldn't see an increase in the money supply; we’d actually see it shrink. So, to keep things moving, even larger loans have to be taken out. That’s really the core of how you have to look at it. People can argue about this until they're blue in the face, but the logic holds up. If the total amount of money in circulation is growing due to inflation, the only way that happens is through someone taking on debt, either directly or indirectly. There just aren't any other permanent sources for increasing the money supply.

5. Now that we finally know it's... Credit. It’s just one of those things that sits there in the background of everything we do. You think about it when you're looking at a mortgage or maybe just trying to get a decent car loan, and then you realize how much it actually dictates the flow of life. It's all interconnected. People talk about interest rates and the Federal Reserve like they're these distant, abstract concepts, but it hits home when you're staring at a monthly statement. It’s heavy, honestly. Just something to ponder. (someone's state, personal, residential, etc.) The source of funding for increasing the money supply. It's a fundamental question. Basically, when you look at how the money supply expands, you're looking at the actions taken by the Federal Reserve. They control the levers. Through open market operations—buying up government securities, for instance—they inject liquidity directly into the system. This isn't just some abstract theory; it's how the gears actually turn in the US economy. You have the central bank facilitating this flow, which then trickles down through the commercial banking sector. It’s all interconnected. The expansion happens because the Fed decides to increase its balance sheet. Simple enough, really. That's where the new money enters the bloodstream of the financial system. It’s basically just an inflationary mass, really. You have to run a simulation over a specific number of years to see how it actually plays out. So, I went ahead and built that model myself.

So, the logic goes that if you don't like the result, then the whole process must be flawed. Yeah, right. That's just not how it works.

It’s the exact same deal as the budget deficit. It’s been proven that you can't just pay it back when it’s being funded through credit—especially under the same terms 99% of countries operate under—so it’s just not a sound move. This is basically the same thing as what dirkati Krueger talks about. I just added my own conclusions to it. I did the same thing when I added my takeaways regarding inflation.

I'm done writing novels. Just let me know which part doesn't make sense, okay?

Very well, let's go through this step by step.

1) Inflation—by definition, implies an increase in the money supply.
In fact, an increase in the money supply is baked into the very definition of inflation.
Therefore, we don't need more money for the same value because inflation "decided" to show up today. We need more money for the same value because there is *more* money in the system, which automatically makes each unit worth less. The quantity of money has already increased at the exact moment the value drops. This is vital! Do not overlook this! Money doesn't lose value because inflation arrived, necessitating more printing; rather, money is being printed, which causes it to lose value. Printing more will only accelerate the devaluation.

2) Money enters the system through only one channel: the central bank. The Federal Reserve issues the primary supply of money, and no other entity holds that right. The money issued by the Fed must be "covered" somehow. This could be via foreign exchange, bonds, securities, and so on. Each of these elements behaves differently over time and influences the currency in its own way. A nation holding all its reserves in cash acts differently than one holding them in gold, bonds, or even fertilizer for the soil.
We see a massive gap between our exports and imports. I suspect exports cover barely 50% of imports. To claim this can be ignored is a grave error. However, even if it did have an impact, the effect would be deflationary rather than inflationary (dollars leaving the system rather than returning). Furthermore, the vast majority of loans issued in the US are in dollars. Their impact on the dollar is minimal. The budget deficit is the primary driver of inflation in America. Everything else is too negligible to consider.

3) If one nation runs a trade deficit, there must be another nation running an equal deficit with the opposite sign. This is essentially Newton's third law applied to economics, a concept taught at the start of high school. To claim that all nations must have a trade deficit is... well, let's call it vague. Does everyone import more than they export? From where? Mars? Ideally, every nation would have 100.00% of its imports covered by exports. That would be the perfect balance. In practice, however, that is impossible.

4) History shows us that it has never happened that everyone repaid their debt simultaneously. Someone always defaults. A debt default carries a certain probability, which is accounted for by interest. But in reality, money circulates. Money is merely a medium for exchanging goods and labor; it possesses no intrinsic value. It is "spent." Though, strictly speaking, it isn't spent—it is simply exchanged for goods. To simplify: you lend me $40 at 10% interest so I can open a bar. I pay you back $3.25 every month. The first month, I return $3.25 to you. You spend all that cash on a night out, those people go to the doctor for checkups, and the doctor takes those $3.25 to the bar to grab a drink. Suddenly, I have $3.25 again, which I return to you next month. It is a cycle. There is no conspiracy here. Where does the interest come from? Interest is generated through labor! The issue isn't the amount of money in the system; it is the lack of labor required to repay that money. Credit can fuel inflation only for a very short time—until the source runs dry—after which deflation follows. Budget deficits are a different matter entirely.

The money supply is irrelevant when discussing credits and debt repayment. The total amount of money in the system has nothing to do with the ability to repay a loan. The only theoretical problem arises if everyone were to save in cash. Saving in cash is, in practice, the worst form of saving possible. This is precisely why inflation exists; it serves as a corrective measure against hoarding cash, forcing us to put our savings into stocks, real estate, mutual funds, or whatever else.

5) Credit is not the reason for an increase in the money supply. At least not here in the US. Perhaps it happens elsewhere, but in the US, the money supply remains fixed relative to Euro reserves. This is actually beneficial because we practically import everything. Consequently, prices can only rise on domestic products.

Remember this: a healthy economy must be built upon saving and investing. Increasing the money supply generates inflation and discourages saving—and without saving, there can be no investment or development.
Economic policy will never be a generator of economic growth. At most, it can serve as a solid foundation for future development. Anyone who expects economic policy to generate growth all by itself is either delusional, foolish, or uneducated.

Maria Thomas48, you are truly driving me to the brink of madness. I feel physically ill. 🙂
But I will try one more time...

Here is a perfect example of how competition can actually backfire. You go to a local farmers market and look at the prices for lettuce. Everyone is selling it at the exact same rate. $5.00It is highly unlikely that everyone uses the exact same supplier. Consider this alternative perspective. I am aware my product is inferior, yet I choose to highlight the price just as aggressively as the others. In doing so, I effectively undermine those who invest significant effort into offering high-quality goods at a premium. My salad costs less to produce, even if the quality is lower, because I am simply exploiting an uninformed customer base. To the casual observer, the products look identical. Meanwhile, a truly excellent producer is being driven out of business.

Suppose your cousin Luka offered to sell you some firewood at a discount. What would you say to him? It’s pure greed. Yet, he could easily do it. That is simply how the market works.

Competition and profit margins can exist in total opposition. Take the banking sector, for example. Banks often have little incentive to truly compete when they operate within a monopoly. If one major bank raises its fees, another might follow suit simply to capture more market share. Once that first bank sees there is still room to maneuver, they raise prices even further. It isn't a matter of intellect; it is purely a matter of greed. Everyone is at fault when a serious predator decides to pour massive capital into a business just to squeeze out a small amount of high-margin profit.

Here is another textbook example of what people call "healthy competition." Consider the cost of higher education. Universities operate as independent entities, and theoretically, they could hike tuition rates whenever necessary to balance supply and demand. It is a pure economic maneuver. They aim to transform academic institutions into profit-driven corporations where maximizing margins is the primary goal. The pharmaceutical industry operates under a similar logic. When drugs are effective but cannot be easily patented, companies find every possible way to obscure them from the market. The objective remains the same: maximize revenue, even if it comes at the expense of patient care. Is this truly how a society should function?

Take the salad analogy. It represents a genuine possibility within a functional system. However, to make the logic hold up, you have to introduce one more vital premise into the equation. It is this: "All people are idiots." Once you accept that, then you have:

Everyone is selling salad for fifteen dollars. Is this really happening?
The quality of this salad is simply inferior to the other options available. Is it too much to ask for consistency?
It seems everyone is simply an idiot. This is extremely important.
----------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion? Every vendor out there is selling the exact same salad for fifteen bucks.

In a system where not everyone is an idiot, rumors spread incredibly fast. You see it with your own eyes. If you serve a salad that is subpar—dry, stale, or just plain old—the whole thing falls apart. Why would anyone settle for less?
If I am going to buy inferior wood from my brother Luka, the premise remains the same. Suppose I were an idiot.Without that underlying premise, the entire system falls apart. How can it hold weight? If I spot a superior offer from another supplier, the logic fails.

What can one even say about the banks? It isn’t easy for them either. Nowadays, half the population—if you consider how many people actually think about their responsibilities—simply refuses to pay back what they owe. On top of that, a significant number of people are looking for capital abroad. How is a bank supposed to return funds to depositors when the borrower refuses to settle their debt? They resort to fees. They hike interest rates. They charge for late notices. The honest citizens are left struggling to make ends meet however they can. From the bank's perspective, they lent the money fairly. They drafted the contracts honestly. They laid out the terms transparently. Now, they are left hoping some shady, dishonest fraudster who signed those papers actually honors their obligation before disappearing. But let us get back to the main topic.

Universities. Let's take this on as a topic for a research paper. Why is it that in America, we have such a vast landscape of private universities, yet here in our country, everything seems centered around just one major public institution? In a place like Miami, you might see specialized programs for tourism management, but is that all there is to it? Does anyone else have any insights on this?

I will say it once more: you are profoundly mistaken. You have constructed a personal theory, convinced yourself that you have finally unlocked the hidden mechanics of the system, and yet you are completely off base. You are staring at a single pixel and claiming to understand the entire portrait. I repeat, you are wrong. You are deeply, fundamentally wrong. Go back to the beginning. Study the facts from scratch. And then, perhaps, reconsider your position.

A professor once told me this during my college days: when you stumble upon a brilliant idea—one that feels like pure strokes of genius—don't let your ego run away with you. You might feel incredibly lucky to have conceived it, wondering why nobody else thought of it first. But before you rush headlong into execution, stop. Do your homework. Research whether someone else has already attempted this and, more importantly, what their results were. Education is the only way to validate intuition.

I could offer you the exact same advice. The concept of printing money to solve liquidity shortages is an ancient idea—far older than you likely realize. Even in the Roman Empire, they used to debase coins by using lead cores wrapped in gold. It didn't take long before no sane person would trade for them. Have you ever wondered why the custom exists to bite a gold coin when someone hands it to you? It was to check its purity.

There is still so much you don't know. With such limited knowledge, you are attempting to lecture people who possess far more expertise than you—the administration, the President's advisors, the Federal Reserve, and university economics professors. To be perfectly honest, if I had received an email like yours, I wouldn't even bother replying. At most, I might send a brief note stating that your position has been noted.

If a family member tries to charge you twice for painting a house when they only did the job once—and without actually doing any work—do they really deserve that money?
If your son Ivica decides to start charging five times the standard rate for sweeping streets just because he suddenly needs extra cash, what does that actually accomplish? It isn't just about the money. It devalues the hard work of everyone else in the community. Is that not simply greed?
What happens if your cousin Marko decides to triple the price of firewood? What if he starts charging three times more for energy resources?

He didn't complete the work, so you shouldn't pay him. Isn't that exactly why oversight exists?
I have a son, Stevica, who isn't quite as sharp as Ivica. However, he notices that Ivica earns a steady living without much effort. Soon enough, he will come to me and say, "Dad, I’m going to do the exact same job for a lower price." In textbooks, they call this competition.
Then there is my brother, Luka, who also owns a forest. He sees that he could turn a profit if he starts selling timber too. And just like that, we have more competition.

Do you even grasp the fundamental definition of competition?
Do you realize that socialism has failed?
Seriously, take a moment to reflect. I am not attempting to trivialize the situation; it is quite clear that you are self-taught and lack any formal education. This isn't an insult. It is simply a factual observation. Is it not like suffering from an illness, yet refusing to listen to a doctor because you believe you know better than the medical professionals?
You are mistaken. You are completely, profoundly wrong.

What you are suggesting would create a disastrous system. It would be even worse than socialism, where profit is essentially eliminated. Was he being punished?It would kill any hope for productivity or hard work. The principle is simple: you won't pay me a cent more than I can get away with doing, until someone else shows up willing to do more for the exact same wage. At that point, the first person ends up out on the street in total misery.

Think about this for a second. I have to head to a lecture now, but your premises are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is incredibly poor. You are intentionally ignoring the basic principles of market competition just to push your own theory regarding profit penalties. Good grief... I really shouldn't listen to everything posted here. 🙂

What is the solution? First, everyone must realize that the only way out involves a complete overhaul of the financial system. Second, energy companies should be nationalized to stabilize fuel prices. I know asking for this seems irrational, given that we are draining our resources at a rate suggesting we will run dry in roughly 20 to 35 years unless we curb population growth and energy consumption.

You claim it is irrational to ask, yet you are asking for it yourself. 😉
A systemic change? Do you actually have any arguments to support that? Zero points.

Third. Corruption must be purged from the government apparatus, ideally using a Chinese-style method—execution against a wall. Any major bribery or price gouging intended for extra profit should be punished by expropriation of assets (referring to significant holdings). The number of officials and agencies needs to be streamlined so that maximum work is done with minimum personnel. Naturally, the laws must be structured to make this possible.

Bingo.

Fourth. A precise plan must be drawn up. Some might call it a five-year plan. Wages should be lowered to align with our actual GDP per capita. It is only logical that we cannot maintain wages higher than those of nations with greater per-capita productivity.

Why would I force private businesses to slash their employees' pay if they are doing well? That is the very foundation of competition. If everyone received identical salaries regardless of effort, we would end up like the old socialist states.

Fifth: Credit expansion must be scaled back according to projected profits. In other words, banks should not issue more credit than can generate enough profit during that period to cover repayments. There must be a strict limit on how much profit banks can extract; it must be significantly less than the total potential profit for that cycle.

The Federal Reserve defines that through mandatory bank reserves. I must admit, they have performed their duties quite effectively over the years. Unless you believe you could do better? 😉
The issue arose because banks were accumulating massive reserves simply to issue massive loans. During that era, everyone was working against the Federal Reserve. But that is a different matter entirely.

Sixth: All of this must be coordinated with other nations to ensure currency parity. What the USA proposes should serve as a universal program. This would achieve convertibility for every currency within the plan. Developing nations could then have convertible currencies, rather than just the major powers.

And how exactly do you intend to enforce that? With what army? 😉

Sixth: We must address the failures of globalization. It exploits one group of workers just to allow another group to be undercut by bargain-basement prices. This serves neither party. How can we fix this? International agreements are required. Ultimately, the government picks up the tab for everything. If a nation truly cares for its citizens, it will not permit the influx of cheap imports that could be produced profitably under our own domestic conditions. By allowing this, the state is effectively subsidizing foreign economies. We should first ensure prosperity within our own borders as a cohesive community. Perhaps a return to trade reciprocity would work. If you wish to export, you must import something of actual value rather than mere cheap goods.

The concept behind globalization is actually to eliminate exploitation. The goal is for labor in America to hold the same value as labor in China or elsewhere. While we haven't reached that point yet, we are slowly moving toward it. Eventually, this parity will increase.

Eighth: Entrepreneurial freedom should not be restricted unless it generates excessive profits that ultimately cover a budget deficit. Such excess devalues currency and triggers inflationary spirals. Anyone seeking extreme profit margins must either reinvest those funds optimally or reduce them from the outset. Of course, any proven laundering of excessive profits would be punished by expropriation.

Regarding this, I can only say you are delusional. Would you forbid entrepreneurs from generating profit? Would you stop cows from producing milk just in case there is too much milk in the system? Entrepreneurs exist to make a profit, and they pay taxes on that profit. Forbidding an entrepreneur from earning money is like forbidding a politician from lying. What kind of system did you grow up in?

Ninth: Greed for profit should be sanctioned through drastic measures. This means wholesalers, resellers, and middlemen must limit their margins to a specific percentage of the procurement cost (including real transportation costs).

Greed for profit, my dear friend, is perhaps the single most powerful driving force of the global economy. Ninety-nine percent of people start ventures and create things for the benefit of the entire world simply because they are incentivized by potential profit. They do it because many people will pay for it, allowing them to earn significantly. To forbid people from earning is to kill that drive. The result is stagnation. There is no more development, no more innovation, and no more effort.

What you are saying is exhausting. Truly. I have never seen so many unfounded, unverified, and illogical conclusions in one place. You would create something far worse than the worst socialism, which has repeatedly proven itself to be a failed system in practice. I honestly do not understand where you are getting this from.

Look here...

To begin with, inflation is not some bolt from the blue that appears unexpectedly out of nowhere (though it seems you are convinced that 😉)
Inflation has precisely defined causes that remain constant: an increase in the money supply within the system.
Depending on average behavior—whether people are saving or spending—we experience either high or low price inflation. Furthermore, shifts in attitude manifest in prices. A nation that was once heavily inclined toward saving creates inflationary pressure the moment its citizens begin spending without thought.

Additionally, bank interest rates are not added to inflation; that is a terrible amateur mistake made by someone who lacks the fundamentals.
Inflation is the figure that shows how much less our money is worth. Interest is the figure that shows how much the bank charges per year on borrowed funds. If you view them together, regarding borrowed money, the bank realistically loses the inflation amount and gains the interest. Therefore, after one year of repayment, that money is worth less due to inflation and more due to interest. In terms of bank profit, you subtract inflation from the interest.

Regarding where interest actually comes from in the American system: a person takes out a loan, uses that loan to produce something, sells it abroad for US dollars, converts those dollars back into local currency, and pays the bank back in that currency. The bank collects the currency to pay taxes to the government, and the government injects that money back into the system through wages and other disbursements. If we are productive, the amount of currency in the system remains stable while we accumulate US dollars or other currencies. If we are unproductive, currency leaves the system and there is a "shortage of money." Although the money isn't actually missing, people simply aren't working; the money flows out, and no one is making an effort to return it to the system. Printing new money will not solve this problem. It will only deepen it. Instead of stopping the outflow of money from the system, we will continue to export it because we mistakenly believe it exists. We will only find ourselves in greater trouble.

Printing money is a mistake.

The banking system is not a perpetual motion machine. Inflation is a tax on savings (which goes to the government, not the bank), and interest rates are competitive because our banking market is open.

You are truly mistaken. You have some useful ideas on your previous page, some unfeasible ones, and some useless ones, but it is obvious you lack the basic principles required to reach a correct conclusion.

Every economy must be built upon the pillars of savings and investment.
The cycle should follow a logical progression: savings leads to investment, which generates profit, which then feeds back into more savings.
A healthy economy grows on this foundation.
Mistakes occur when this sequence is corrupted into... credit leading to investment, followed by profit, and finally interest payments.
Why is this dangerous? If you fail under the first model, you simply lose your savings. But if you fail under the second, you become a burden on the state and society, while the interest eats away at any potential profit.
However, that scenario is still preferable to the alternative...
The absolute worst solution—a total economic suicide and an atomic bomb dropped on national finances—is... credit leading directly to consumption.
This is a silent killer. You often don't realize it exists until it is far too late.

We, along with many others (USA, Greece, Italy, Spain, UK, ...), have lived this way for decades. Even today, those who can afford to continue doing so, do. Most people lacked the fundamental financial education required to understand their own actions. They behaved like a herd, blindly following whatever direction the leader set.

The crisis we face now has been brewing for years. Would you truly attempt to solve it by simply printing a mountain of cash?😉 Please, listen to reason.🙂
The actual solution requires reducing government spending, minimizing the tax burden as much as possible, and paying down debt without taking on more. Such measures inevitably trigger social unrest. This is why such a straightforward solution is so difficult to implement; it requires perfect timing and careful dosage.

Read this. Reflect on it. Then, come back to me with your questions and new ideas.😉

I am in complete agreement with you. This is precisely why one consults an auto mechanic during a crisis rather than an economist.

Just consider this scenario: how would you perform if you were suddenly tasked with managing the nation's entire money supply?

And once again, Nostradamus, a global crisis does not occur simply because there is a lack of liquidity in the system. As you pointed out, money is merely a medium of exchange; it possesses no intrinsic value. The current global crisis stems from the fact that certain nations have spent years living on credit to fund consumption rather than production. It has become clear that some countries will never be able to repay their debts. Trust has evaporated, credit has dried up, or interest rates have climbed so high that these debtor nations find repayment even more impossible. It is a closed loop. This cycle will inevitably lead to defaults in several countries, but once the system is purged, moving forward should become easier. Everyone will learn a hard lesson. Printing money without cutting spending leads directly to hyperinflation. This is basic logic. Why is this so difficult to grasp? You aren't reinventing the wheel. The USA has been attempting to exit a recession for over a year using that exact method—printing money to stimulate spending—and the result is a record deficit, record debt, and record unemployment.

In that case, it’s essentially the same thing. It isn't really about what you call the product; it's about how you actually use it.

Regarding your question, I honestly can't think of a single one. But isn't that precisely the point? A debit card is designed for immediate payment, whereas a credit card provides a line of credit and allows for installments. That is the very definition of the two. To ask for a debit card with installment options is functionally identical to asking for a credit card.

Unfortunately, I find myself forced to agree with Richard Lewis16 on this point. It seems we have finally found common ground. 😁

I simply want to express how truly disheartening this entire situation is to hear. You present yourself as a decent person who, through nothing more than a series of unfortunate investments and poor associations, has ended up completely destitute.

I realize this may be an uncomfortable thing to say, but if you are certain your partner possesses sufficient funds to provide everything that child requires—ensuring they are well-fed and well-provided for—there may be a legal avenue to petition for a reduction or cessation of child support if circumstances become dire enough. Navigating a modification through the US court system can drag on for years. Contrast that with a bank; if you miss payments on a mortgage or a loan, the warnings start immediately, and they will move to foreclose on your home before you know it.

It is merely a thought. I wish you luck.

While Rohatinski serves as the Governor of the Federal Reserve, there is a 0% chance.

I read it on Wikipedia, but still,