80 posts shown.
Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.
Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....
You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.
I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.Let's start talking about specifics.
How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?
Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....
And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?
If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?
So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?
I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.
The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:
Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation
Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.
The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.
If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.
Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.
Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....
You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.
I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.Let's start talking about specifics.
How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?
Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....
And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?
If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?
So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?
I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.
The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:
Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation
Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.
The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.
If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.
Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.
Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....
You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.
I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.Let's start talking about specifics.
How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?
Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....
And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?
If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?
So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?
I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.
The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:
Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation
Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.
The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.
If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.
Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.
Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....
You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.
I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.Let's start talking about specifics.
How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?
Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....
And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?
If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?
So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?
I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.
The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:
Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation
Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.
The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.
If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.
Maria Thomas48 said:The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.
Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.
Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.
So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?
We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.
So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.
The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.
When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.
We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).
But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.
I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.
And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.
Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.
This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.
Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.
Stay alive and stay smart!
Maria Thomas48 said:The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.
Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.
Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.
So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?
We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.
So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.
The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.
When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.
We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).
But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.
I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.
And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.
Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.
This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.
Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.
Stay alive and stay smart!
Maria Thomas48 said:The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.
Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.
Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.
So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?
We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.
So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.
The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.
When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.
We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).
But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.
I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.
And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.
Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.
This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.
Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.
Stay alive and stay smart!
Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.
Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....
You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.
I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.Let's start talking about specifics.
How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?
Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....
And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?
If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?
So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?
I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.
The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:
Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation
Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.
The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.
If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.
Maria Thomas48 said:Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.
Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....
You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.
I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.Let's start talking about specifics.
How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?
Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....
And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?
If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?
So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?
I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.
The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:
Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation
Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.
The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.
If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.
Maria Thomas48 said:The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.
Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.
Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.
So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?
We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.
So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.
The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.
When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.
We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).
But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.
I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.
And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.
Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.
This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.
Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.
Stay alive and stay smart!
Maria Thomas48 said:The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.
Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.
Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.
So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?
We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.
So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.
The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.
When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.
We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).
But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.
I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.
And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.
Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.
This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.
Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.
Stay alive and stay smart!
Maria Thomas48 said:The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.
Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.
Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.
So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?
We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.
So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.
The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.
When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.
We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).
But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.
I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.
And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.
Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.
This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.
Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.
Stay alive and stay smart!
Maria Thomas48 said:Controlling the wealthy isn't necessary. I never said that.
The goal should be creating conditions where everyone gets paid fairly for their work and can cover their basic living costs. That doesn't depend on the type of system—whether it's feudalism, capitalism, or whatever.
My ideas aren't aimed at the wealthy, they are aimed at those who rule through debt.
Maria Thomas48 said:Of course I can. There was this broad group of wealthy people who just keep getting wealthier, eventually crossing over those fixed wealth thresholds over time.
It would be much more useful if there was some kind of distribution statistic showing where the number of wealthy people sits relative to total global wealth.
But even looking at this data, it's clear the number of ultra-wealthy people grew faster than the general wealthy population, and their assets surged significantly. It means we aren't seeing any movement toward equality, just more divergence.
The percentage growth of the wealthy should also be weighed against population growth.
Maria Thomas48 said:Controlling the wealthy isn't necessary. I never said that.
The goal should be creating conditions where everyone gets paid fairly for their work and can cover their basic living costs. That doesn't depend on the type of system—whether it's feudalism, capitalism, or whatever.
My ideas aren't aimed at the wealthy, they are aimed at those who rule through debt.
Maria Thomas48 said:Controlling the wealthy isn't necessary. I never said that.
The goal should be creating conditions where everyone gets paid fairly for their work and can cover their basic living costs. That doesn't depend on the type of system—whether it's feudalism, capitalism, or whatever.
My ideas aren't aimed at the wealthy, they are aimed at those who rule through debt.
Maria Thomas48 said:Of course I can. There was this broad group of wealthy people who just keep getting wealthier, eventually crossing over those fixed wealth thresholds over time.
It would be much more useful if there was some kind of distribution statistic showing where the number of wealthy people sits relative to total global wealth.
But even looking at this data, it's clear the number of ultra-wealthy people grew faster than the general wealthy population, and their assets surged significantly. It means we aren't seeing any movement toward equality, just more divergence.
The percentage growth of the wealthy should also be weighed against population growth.
Maria Thomas48 said:Of course I can. There was this broad group of wealthy people who just keep getting wealthier, eventually crossing over those fixed wealth thresholds over time.
It would be much more useful if there was some kind of distribution statistic showing where the number of wealthy people sits relative to total global wealth.
But even looking at this data, it's clear the number of ultra-wealthy people grew faster than the general wealthy population, and their assets surged significantly. It means we aren't seeing any movement toward equality, just more divergence.
The percentage growth of the wealthy should also be weighed against population growth.
Maria Thomas48 said:Of course I can. There was this broad group of wealthy people who just keep getting wealthier, eventually crossing over those fixed wealth thresholds over time.
It would be much more useful if there was some kind of distribution statistic showing where the number of wealthy people sits relative to total global wealth.
But even looking at this data, it's clear the number of ultra-wealthy people grew faster than the general wealthy population, and their assets surged significantly. It means we aren't seeing any movement toward equality, just more divergence.
The percentage growth of the wealthy should also be weighed against population growth.
Maria Thomas48 said:I'm not saying everyone needs to be a massive success, but it just doesn't make sense that being unsuccessful automatically means you end up in debt. If you aren't making it, your long-term balance should essentially sit at zero. That isn't what we're seeing today. People are taking out loans just to cover their basic living expenses. Of course, there are those who just spend money they don't have on things they don't need, but I'm not really talking about them. Losers will always be losers. I’m talking about the people who work hard every single day but still can't make ends meet without falling into a deficit. The whole issue comes down to how money is regulated. You can see the proof if you look at an XLS spreadsheet. Every single transaction represents a service, a product, or a tax payment. It all ties back to that.I just don't get the logic behind trying to chase autarky in today's world. We’re living in an era where the flow of capital, people, goods, and services is at a level that people fifty years ago only dreamed of in sci-fi novels. Which country can actually afford to close its borders and retreat into isolation? NONE. Not the USA, not Japan, not some small nation, absolutely nobody. Yet, you're still stuck insisting on a closed system. red_shrike explained the zero-sum game perfectly, but that concept doesn't exist in modern international trade, and it certainly doesn't apply to total state business, if you can even call it that.
I’ve been running my analysis on a closed system, but honestly, that's just an illusion. Even if you have imports and exports, the system is essentially a closed loop financially. You aren't seeing capital flow there; you're seeing the movement of goods. The math I laid out only holds up when you have a balanced trade deficit. Keeping trade balanced is vital if you want to maintain the value of the dollar. I assume I don't need to break that part down. If you export a ton but barely import anything, you end up sitting on a massive pile of foreign currency while facing a shortage of actual goods. You need that foreign cash to buy products from abroad and to pay off your debts. Look, accumulating foreign reserves is definitely better than being in the red, but you have to realize there's a real risk of triggering inflation. Because of that, money supply would have to be tightened. Then, you'd have to make up for that gap through taxes. This only becomes necessary when the economy can't turn that extra influx of cash into new goods and services—basically, once we hit full employment.Look, your math is solid—I’m giving you an A on that. Nobody is questioning the calculations themselves. But the whole thing is built on completely flawed principles. Anyone can cook up a theory and then just claim their model works perfectly because they've rigged the starting assumptions to fit. Just don't forget that a bad assumption is usually where the whole damn thing falls apart. 🙂
The principles are sound. If you look at the Earth as one isolated system, then the formulas have to apply to it. By that logic, it turns out that doing anything on this planet is globally unprofitable. The proof is right there in the numbers—we’re sitting on a mountain of debt that far exceeds any actual real-world value. If everything were functioning normally, the total amount of money in circulation, even being less than the debt itself, should still be trailing behind the true value of our assets. But it isn't.Look, if you’re actually out there putting in the work and staying productive, the Wall Street guys aren't going to skin you alive. They aren't coming for you. Instead, they'll be looking at the people who just sit around waiting for a miracle or a handout from above. And honestly? You shouldn't feel bad for them. If you’re someone who is actively working, investing, and building something—even if you have to take out some loans to make it happen—you generally don't need to lose sleep over what the future holds. You've built something real.
The premise is just wrong. If it’s easy to prove that the system is destroying lives because it's fundamentally broken, then we can't exactly build a future on top of it. All the global statistics show that the number of wealthy people amassing massive fortunes is actually shrinking. That is a direct consequence of this whole poker-style setup. You can see it right there in the math. Honestly, who can even celebrate their own savings when they know that those savings just created an even bigger debt for someone else on the other side?What element are we even talking about? In a capitalist system, everything is mapped out down to the smallest detail. There’s no such thing as some uncontrollable force of nature here. The fact that the government doesn't get to decide who drinks and who pays—leaving that entirely up to the market instead—that isn't some chaotic "element." Honestly, there has never been a better regulator than the free market. It’s just how it works. You have to remember that any single individual is still just a person made of flesh and blood, driven by their own little preferences and personal worldviews. But the market? The market reflects the collective preferences of the entire population in an area. That is exactly why the market is superior.
Wrong again. Based on those ideas, it’s actually top-tier. It’s just the law of the jungle out there. The strong take what they want and everyone else just watches it happen. That's how things work. It's simple. No way around it.Then you don't even need a government or all those massive institutions. It just becomes a matter of the strongest person winning. Simple as that. No errors.
The law of supply and demand... it’s all well and good, but it doesn't actually explain how we reach prosperity. It just describes the movement. It doesn't give you the roadmap to actual well-being.So, why are you so against exporting? You say we’re just passing the buck to another country. I mean, sure, maybe that’s true, but what’s actually wrong with that? We have to fight for space in the market. If we don't export a product today, we’ll just be stuck importing the exact same thing tomorrow. It’s a market game. You have to compete and, honestly, you have to screw someone else over just so they don't screw you over first. It isn't pretty, and it isn't moral, and we'll probably all end up in hell for it, but that’s just reality. The sooner we accept that, the better off we'll be.
I’m not against exporting goods. I really am not. My issue is this constant trade deficit we're running—that gap that just keeps growing until the debts become unmanageable. You can't run a country like this. It feels like we're playing high-stakes poker with the lives and futures of 330 million Americans. Right now, it’s basically a lottery. And when you're an emerging economy trying to change the game, the odds are stacked heavily against you. Every single one of those people deserves the chance to live their best possible life. That shouldn't be a dream. It’s actually achievable if a nation manages its resources, its people, and its expertise correctly. So, why waste our people and our natural wealth? Why let everything go to waste just because we refuse to actually put our knowledge to work?
Excessive exporting is basically just another way to deplete our own resources. We're burning through what we have just to manufacture extra cash that we could honestly just create through simple money printing. It feels pretty mindless when you look at it that way. And clearly, nobody is even giving this any thought.The gold standard worked because there was actual, tangible value backing everything up—real gold you could touch. Nowadays, the whole system just runs on pure trust. I get why you might be against the gold standard, and I totally get being skeptical of modern banking, but being against both at the same time? I honestly don't follow that logic.
I mean, it’s like people just don't get that money only works if it's actually tied to creating value. It feels pretty pointless to try and manufacture double the value—one sitting uselessly in a vault as gold and the other being actual useful goods. It's just a total waste of resources. Honestly, it's just busywork.
The gold standard mattered because it allowed banks to expand credit without much worry. People trusted it because of the gold reserves. But honestly, it’s all a scam. The demand for money supply grew way past the actual amount of gold available. It was bound to fail, especially when other countries—the ones swimming in dollars—started demanding their gold back.1. The government isn't the only entity creating money. You have primary issuance, then secondary, and even tertiary in the form of vouchers or similar things distributed through compensations. If you take away a bank's ability to perform secondary issuance, then what's the point of having banks at all?
All money issuance except for the state's needs to be killed off. No one else in the country should be able to expand the money supply. We aren't talking about eliminating secondary issuance entirely. We just need to stop the multiplication through deposits. You achieve this with a reserve requirement of 50%. That way, through multiple deposit cycles from issued loans, you can't artificially inflate the money supply. Theoretically, 100% ends up in the reserve fund, which matches the total sum of issued credits. The initial cash isn't being turned into a larger volume of credit.2. Okay, suppose the Fed hikes interest rates on everything we import tomorrow. The day after, you'll be standing outside their window, hungry and thirsty, because the grocery stores are empty. The US imports basic food staples. Why? Because our domestic food is too expensive. And why is it expensive? Because there are basically two and a half real producers in the whole country, and thousands of "farmers" who are just waiting for subsidies while chilling in Lamborghinis with their tractors!! Would you really want to introduce tariffs in a situation like that??
That is a pretty extreme claim. While they try to convince us we can produce enough food for many times more people, you're arguing that it's impossible. Subsidies are mainly used for national production planning. If the US needs wheat and it can be grown domestically, it's cheaper to give out subsidies than to grow something else, sell it on the global market, and use that money to buy wheat. Subsidies are just subsidies; they aren't the only way to make a profit. Things have become so distorted here that food production only stays afloat because of those subsidies.
A policy of cheap imports is fatal for our own production. Nothing imported is actually cheap unless something else was exported to generate the foreign currency needed to pay for it. The negative gap in the balance of payments with foreign nations creates an exponentially growing debt. Today, we only have the foreign currency to buy imports because the government borrows from abroad, and the Federal Reserve issues dollars to the state. Ivan Pernar has said this multiple times. This illusion of having enough currency for imports while removing tariff barriers ultimately destroys our economy (while the debt keeps climbing). And who was pushing for free trade? The very people providing the loans. How interesting. It's one of the pillars of the IMF's destruction program. It's also worth noting that the external debt is unnecessarily large because we borrow abroad to cover domestic transactions (which causes inflation and money supply expansion), and then the banks charge us constant interest on an ever-growing principal. It's total nonsense!
I haven't written my article on importing and buying foreign goods yet, but I will.
There is this book by Mark Francis "Survival". I wouldn't say I agree with everything, but the man offers a lot of solid thoughts regarding the state. Maybe it will be easier to digest what we are discussing here once you read that book. I recommend it.
Maria Thomas48 said:I find myself focusing more on how money is regulated here in America rather than all the chaos happening in global markets. It takes time to process everything, and you have to keep working to make a living. We all know there’s a theory that a global crisis has to be triggered to pave the way for a world government and a single global central bank. But I don't want to get sidetracked by that right now. That's not really what this discussion is about.
I’d much rather focus on our own success here in the States instead of worrying about global events that I can't really influence anyway. If we actually made the right moves here in America, we could serve as a model for overcoming any crisis, and that kind of thing could eventually impact countries all over the world.
Maria Thomas48 said:Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.
When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.
I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.
Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.
There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.
The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.
That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.
Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?
These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.
Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.
Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.
In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.
The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.
The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).
See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.
Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.
According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.
The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.
After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?
Maria Thomas48 said:Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.
When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.
I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.
Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.
There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.
The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.
That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.
Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?
These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.
Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.
Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.
In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.
The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.
The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).
See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.
Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.
According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.
The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.
After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?
Maria Thomas48 said:Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.
When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.
I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.
Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.
There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.
The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.
That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.
Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?
These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.
Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.
Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.
In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.
The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.
The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).
See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.
Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.
According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.
The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.
After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?
placidranger said: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?
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:The text is in English, and my English isn't exactly top-tier. From what I can gather, it's about a currency you can only spend once.
I wouldn't spend too much energy on those specific ideas. When you're issuing currency, the most critical factor is the profit from the issuance itself. Right now, bankers rake in those issuance profits through loans, and we get this side effect where one person's gain creates even more debt for someone else. Then those people go under. It's basically poker economics.
It's actually quite natural for those issuance profits to be spread out among as many producers as possible. The best way to handle that would be through contributions to a sovereign wealth fund, child benefits, disability assistance, and things like that.
All this nonsense driven by inflation fears won't be necessary if we just shut down every attempt at parallel money issuance via credit, or debt accumulation, or unjustified price hikes—like when there's a natural disaster or just plain corporate greed.
As you might have seen in an article here ( banking by Ivan Pernar & Nostrađurus supports a solution similar to what I'm proposing.
This isn't just some wish list; it's a concept meant to last forever. There's still work to do on it, though, because plenty of details still need to be regulated.
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.
silentbear42 said:So, I guess we're looking at support from more than 50% of the people who actually show up to vote, right?
rustywalker42 said:I don't even need to mention that a few hours BEFORE getting banned, I actually messaged Vojky asking her to check in so she'd let us finish our debate—since I had a hunch she might drop the ban hammer.
I log onto the forum, and what do I see? I've been banned.👎
I didn't want to start this thread earlier, even though this issue has been festering for ages. The main reason was that, just like slybison8, I simply walked away from the rule : Quote because I saw bans being handed out completely arbitrarily.
Now, after jumping back into this sub-forum for a bit because of this whole debate, I'm running right into the same wall.
What I want to know is: why are moderators treated like untouchable royalty? I get it with the admins—they’re the alpha and omega here—but the moderators?! Come on, man. They're just people. Most of the time, the admins don't even know them; they just hand out mod status because they seem "nice."
So, I really don't get who this hostess is trying to impress? She's arrogant as hell, just like slybison8 said, acting with this childish "you're annoying me so I'm shutting down the discussion" attitude.
That sub-forum isn't her private playground, even though she acts like it is. I'm not the only one who feels this way; I've talked to plenty of people who feel exactly the same.
Something needs to be done. And again, hats off to Vojky. I've clashed with him plenty of times in various threads, but he stays objective, and I respect that. I know he's in this debate specifically to make sure things run smoothly, just like they do in other sensitive discussions—you know, like those debates over the death penalty.
But with this hostess? It's a total disaster.👎
rustywalker42 said:I don't even need to mention that a few hours BEFORE getting banned, I actually messaged Vojky asking her to check in so she'd let us finish our debate—since I had a hunch she might drop the ban hammer.
I log onto the forum, and what do I see? I've been banned.👎
I didn't want to start this thread earlier, even though this issue has been festering for ages. The main reason was that, just like slybison8, I simply walked away from the rule : Quote because I saw bans being handed out completely arbitrarily.
Now, after jumping back into this sub-forum for a bit because of this whole debate, I'm running right into the same wall.
What I want to know is: why are moderators treated like untouchable royalty? I get it with the admins—they’re the alpha and omega here—but the moderators?! Come on, man. They're just people. Most of the time, the admins don't even know them; they just hand out mod status because they seem "nice."
So, I really don't get who this hostess is trying to impress? She's arrogant as hell, just like slybison8 said, acting with this childish "you're annoying me so I'm shutting down the discussion" attitude.
That sub-forum isn't her private playground, even though she acts like it is. I'm not the only one who feels this way; I've talked to plenty of people who feel exactly the same.
Something needs to be done. And again, hats off to Vojky. I've clashed with him plenty of times in various threads, but he stays objective, and I respect that. I know he's in this debate specifically to make sure things run smoothly, just like they do in other sensitive discussions—you know, like those debates over the death penalty.
But with this hostess? It's a total disaster.👎
rustywalker42 said:I don't even need to mention that a few hours BEFORE getting banned, I actually messaged Vojky asking her to check in so she'd let us finish our debate—since I had a hunch she might drop the ban hammer.
I log onto the forum, and what do I see? I've been banned.👎
I didn't want to start this thread earlier, even though this issue has been festering for ages. The main reason was that, just like slybison8, I simply walked away from the rule : Quote because I saw bans being handed out completely arbitrarily.
Now, after jumping back into this sub-forum for a bit because of this whole debate, I'm running right into the same wall.
What I want to know is: why are moderators treated like untouchable royalty? I get it with the admins—they’re the alpha and omega here—but the moderators?! Come on, man. They're just people. Most of the time, the admins don't even know them; they just hand out mod status because they seem "nice."
So, I really don't get who this hostess is trying to impress? She's arrogant as hell, just like slybison8 said, acting with this childish "you're annoying me so I'm shutting down the discussion" attitude.
That sub-forum isn't her private playground, even though she acts like it is. I'm not the only one who feels this way; I've talked to plenty of people who feel exactly the same.
Something needs to be done. And again, hats off to Vojky. I've clashed with him plenty of times in various threads, but he stays objective, and I respect that. I know he's in this debate specifically to make sure things run smoothly, just like they do in other sensitive discussions—you know, like those debates over the death penalty.
But with this hostess? It's a total disaster.👎
slybison8 said:Here is a typical example of what a real PDF looks like today (from just a few minutes ago):
rule :
What does this even look like? A "Ask a Lawyer" column in the Arena?
One might also notice how, in response to the first question, Her Majesty the Hostess of Rules further confuses the visitor instead of providing a very clear answer that she surely knows (No, you don't need to go to the county office; you're mistaken, you need the land registry and the title for the property where you are registering your residence, or if it isn't yours, then you need the owner's consent to live there).
In some good old days, certain good old uncensored forum members would act educationally, and they would mock and embarrass this specific person so thoroughly that he would never again think of asking such a question under section 2—I mean, imagine him trying to travel across the border with nothing but a paper certificate. 🙄
But instead, we have a forum-like version of Big Brother: a hostess who stifles discussion, monopolizes the "advice," and performs a classic lobotomy on visitors—essentially dumbing them down.
Perhaps it isn't surprising that she became a moderator. The poor thing perfectly reflects the spirit of the times we live in.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
rustywalker42 said:You’re suffocating the discussion. You leave me in this position where three women just tore me to shreds, and then you go ahead and delete my response? You think that's fair? It's not just unfair—it's plain rude.
Trolling? It’s just provocation without a single actual argument.Look, I was actually making some points here, but you? You just acted like a total brat. "The thread is annoying me, just stop." Really? That's your move?
You think I know why you gave me the ban? It’s because I reported you for trolling again. Yeah, I did it once before, and I got slapped with a ban then, too. Simple as that.
Do I really have to dig up all her outbursts? Fine. Take a look at what people have been saying about this hostess for over a year now:
This first one is especially interesting. People on here actually ended up reaching the exact same conclusions we did:
And there's more:
I can't believe I'm even looking at this again. Is anyone else seeing this? Honestly, what is going on with the moderation lately? It’s getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually think this is fair? We’re all sitting here trying to have a conversation, and then suddenly—bam—everything changes. It feels less like a community and more like some controlled experiment. Why does everything have to be so strictly managed? And don't even get me started on the latest drama involving crimsonsailor7. Seriously? Is this really how we're running things now? It’s just one thing after another. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind, or is it just me? Just asking.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing about crimsonsailor7 is getting ridiculous. Does anyone actually care what she thinks anymore? It’s just noise at this point. Why do we keep circling back to the same old drama? It’s exhausting. Honestly, if you're looking for substance, you're looking in the wrong place. Just move on already.
I can't believe people are still obsessing over this. Seriously? Is everyone really that bored? The whole thing with crimsonsailor7 is just noise. Constant, repetitive noise. Does anyone actually listen to what she says, or do they just wait for their turn to bark? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody even bothers to look away. And the drama? Please. It's all just posturing. A bunch of people acting like they're part of some grand saga when it's really just a mess of ego and bad takes. Why does everyone act like this matters so much? It doesn't. It never does. Get a grip.
slybison8 said:Thanks for those links, rustywalker42.
I suppose this kind of mindset is essentially what causes the disaster over on the Legal board:
rule :
The Legal PDF isn't—no matter how crimsonsailor7 might feel about it—really a place where people come seeking legitimate counsel. I mean, when someone truly needs serious legal advice, they would probably just go to an attorney. People visit the Legal PDF because they're interested in the law as a way to pass the time, have some fun, or just indulge in a hobby. God forbid we ever see a day when internet forums become places where people rely on them for actual legal guidance.
But even if that were to happen, I doubt there would be enough competent lawyers left to help, especially with hostess crimsonsailor7 in charge—most of them have already abandoned the forum.
Linda Wells4 Asks:
You know, I’ve been thinking about what everyone noticed regarding Katrin—and honestly, there's a reason I haven't been able to just shake her attitude. It’s actually the reason I decided to reactivate my account and start typing again.
There’s just one thing I absolutely cannot stand—it goes by the name... Pure treachery.
If you ever get into an argument with her, just watch—she’ll spend the next week hunting through every single one of your posts looking for any tiny excuse to bait you. She lives right on the edge of the forum rules, using them like a weapon to punish you, editing your posts, and just slowly picking at you until she finally gets under your skin. It goes on and on until you eventually snap and tell her exactly where to shove it. But that's when the real trouble starts. Once you lose it, those "borderline" rules suddenly become ironclad, and before you know it, you're banned. You'll be sitting in some digital corner, totally ignored, shouting into the void like a guy standing on a lonely peak in the Rockies during a blizzard—because let’s face it, nobody’s actually listening anyway.
Linda Wells4 said:It’s been a long while since I’ve actually contributed to any thread around here—I basically retired my old handle a while back. Honestly, I only keep this account active because of a few specific registered user functions I need; mostly just to get through those PDFs that I hold dear.
I’ve reached this point where I start viewing posting on this forum as a full-blown obligation—it becomes this thing on my to-do list that I feel pressured to tackle—and then, before I know it, it’s swallowed up a massive chunk of my day. Honestly, between everything else going on, I’m starting to wonder where I'm even supposed to find the extra time for these activities anymore.
It’s actually a relief to see someone finally standing their ground with a different perspective—honestly, I'm glad someone's right for once. Though, looking at how you managed to bypass all those filters... man, you really dodged a bullet there. 🙄).
Maybe Francesca lives by this one rule: the moment Katrin calls her out, she decides to hold a grudge against every single moderator on the board. 😬
You know, I’ve been thinking about what everyone noticed regarding Katrin—and honestly, there's a reason I haven't been able to just shake off how she carries herself. It’s exactly why I decided to reactivate my account and start typing again.
There is one particular thing I can’t stand—truly, I find it utterly loathsome—and that is perfidy. There's simply no other word for it.
If you ever find yourself getting into it with her—I mean, a real, heated debate over something—just watch how she plays it. She’ll spend the next week hunting through your entire post history, looking for any tiny little loophole in the forum rules just to get under your skin. It’s calculated. She’ll report you for technicalities, edit your posts behind your back, and just slowly, methodically, pick at you until you’re practically vibrating with rage. It keeps going like that—this relentless, subtle poking—right up until the moment you finally snap and tell her exactly where she can shove it. But that’s when the trap closes. The second you lose your cool and lash out, suddenly those "gray area" rules don't matter anymore. Now, you've broken a hard rule, and you'll find yourself tossed into the digital equivalent of a solitary confinement cell. You’ll be sitting there in some obscure corner of the site, shouting into the void like a guy standing alone on a peak in the Rockies during a blizzard—nobody’s listening, nobody cares, and you're just left whistling in the wind.
Look, Katrin—I’m a spiteful person. I am, I am, I am. No, wait... actually, I haven't forgotten you. I have. I really have. Everything is forgiven—truly, I mean it. 😁
In my entire six-plus years of lurking and posting on this forum—which feels like a lifetime, honestly—I’ve managed to rack up exactly two bans and maybe five warnings total since they started handing them out... most of which came courtesy of Katrin. 😬It’s funny, really—I’ve been posting all over the place, yet somehow I managed to miss the mark when it came to actually starting a thread in the right section. It’s almost impressive, isn't it? Honestly, I can't even make excuses... even when I was dealing with that absolute nightmare of a period—you know, that overwhelming monthly cycle—I still couldn't seem to get my navigation straight! Just one of those days, I guess.
I couldn't care less about the ban—honestly, I earned most of my marks around here through sheer stubbornness, and they were worth it—but what actually eats at me is the injustice of it all. It’s the thought that some new user might stumble upon Katrin, only to walk away from this forum entirely because things feel off. We might lose out on a thousand laughs, a thousand brilliant posts, or a thousand deep, winding discussions that serve as the perfect seasoning for my morning coffee before I dive headfirst into the daily grind. It’s just a damn shame.
Look, I don't exactly sit around catching up on the daily news cycle—I leave that to the people with more patience than me. I stick to the forums. And honestly, even if you look at a legal document or some official PDF posted here, it really ought to be more than just dry text. It should actually be engaging, informative... a place where people can trade experiences, swap intel, offer advice, or even genuinely learn something new. That’s what a community is for, right? What else is there?
A law—unlike any other PDF document floating around—should never be a mere reflection of whatever views the moderator "editing" it happens to hold. To me, managing a sub-forum means actually respecting the people participating in the debate; it’s about trying to simmer down the best possible broth from those discussions so that everyone who drops by later gets a taste of something meaningful.
That’s just how I see it, anyway.
But hey, maybe I’ve got it all wrong.
🤷
P.S. I don't want anyone thinking I'm trying to claim ownership of this thread like some old relic—I'm slowly backing away. I'm heading out; I've earned my pension on this forum fair and square.
"let me see you go
may your step be light
there they walk together
just like so many before us
in a way, you are an image
that people remember
the sweet movement of a dear soul
ah, I am retreating into solitude
👋
Linda Wells4 said:It’s been a long while since I’ve actually contributed to any thread around here—I basically retired my old handle a while back. Honestly, I only keep this account active because of a few specific registered user functions I need; mostly just to get through those PDFs that I hold dear.
I’ve reached this point where I start viewing posting on this forum as a full-blown obligation—it becomes this thing on my to-do list that I feel pressured to tackle—and then, before I know it, it’s swallowed up a massive chunk of my day. Honestly, between everything else going on, I’m starting to wonder where I'm even supposed to find the extra time for these activities anymore.
It’s actually a relief to see someone finally standing their ground with a different perspective—honestly, I'm glad someone's right for once. Though, looking at how you managed to bypass all those filters... man, you really dodged a bullet there. 🙄).
Maybe Francesca lives by this one rule: the moment Katrin calls her out, she decides to hold a grudge against every single moderator on the board. 😬
You know, I’ve been thinking about what everyone noticed regarding Katrin—and honestly, there's a reason I haven't been able to just shake off how she carries herself. It’s exactly why I decided to reactivate my account and start typing again.
There is one particular thing I can’t stand—truly, I find it utterly loathsome—and that is perfidy. There's simply no other word for it.
If you ever find yourself getting into it with her—I mean, a real, heated debate over something—just watch how she plays it. She’ll spend the next week hunting through your entire post history, looking for any tiny little loophole in the forum rules just to get under your skin. It’s calculated. She’ll report you for technicalities, edit your posts behind your back, and just slowly, methodically, pick at you until you’re practically vibrating with rage. It keeps going like that—this relentless, subtle poking—right up until the moment you finally snap and tell her exactly where she can shove it. But that’s when the trap closes. The second you lose your cool and lash out, suddenly those "gray area" rules don't matter anymore. Now, you've broken a hard rule, and you'll find yourself tossed into the digital equivalent of a solitary confinement cell. You’ll be sitting there in some obscure corner of the site, shouting into the void like a guy standing alone on a peak in the Rockies during a blizzard—nobody’s listening, nobody cares, and you're just left whistling in the wind.
Look, Katrin—I’m a spiteful person. I am, I am, I am. No, wait... actually, I haven't forgotten you. I have. I really have. Everything is forgiven—truly, I mean it. 😁
In my entire six-plus years of lurking and posting on this forum—which feels like a lifetime, honestly—I’ve managed to rack up exactly two bans and maybe five warnings total since they started handing them out... most of which came courtesy of Katrin. 😬It’s funny, really—I’ve been posting all over the place, yet somehow I managed to miss the mark when it came to actually starting a thread in the right section. It’s almost impressive, isn't it? Honestly, I can't even make excuses... even when I was dealing with that absolute nightmare of a period—you know, that overwhelming monthly cycle—I still couldn't seem to get my navigation straight! Just one of those days, I guess.
I couldn't care less about the ban—honestly, I earned most of my marks around here through sheer stubbornness, and they were worth it—but what actually eats at me is the injustice of it all. It’s the thought that some new user might stumble upon Katrin, only to walk away from this forum entirely because things feel off. We might lose out on a thousand laughs, a thousand brilliant posts, or a thousand deep, winding discussions that serve as the perfect seasoning for my morning coffee before I dive headfirst into the daily grind. It’s just a damn shame.
Look, I don't exactly sit around catching up on the daily news cycle—I leave that to the people with more patience than me. I stick to the forums. And honestly, even if you look at a legal document or some official PDF posted here, it really ought to be more than just dry text. It should actually be engaging, informative... a place where people can trade experiences, swap intel, offer advice, or even genuinely learn something new. That’s what a community is for, right? What else is there?
A law—unlike any other PDF document floating around—should never be a mere reflection of whatever views the moderator "editing" it happens to hold. To me, managing a sub-forum means actually respecting the people participating in the debate; it’s about trying to simmer down the best possible broth from those discussions so that everyone who drops by later gets a taste of something meaningful.
That’s just how I see it, anyway.
But hey, maybe I’ve got it all wrong.
🤷
P.S. I don't want anyone thinking I'm trying to claim ownership of this thread like some old relic—I'm slowly backing away. I'm heading out; I've earned my pension on this forum fair and square.
"let me see you go
may your step be light
there they walk together
just like so many before us
in a way, you are an image
that people remember
the sweet movement of a dear soul
ah, I am retreating into solitude
👋
slybison8 said:I suspect there isn't much need for deep analysis here. It seems quite apparent who needs to be replaced. Most of the issues would likely be resolved once Katrin is removed from the Law PDF moderation team, which I believe would pave the way for many former contributors to return—those who were perhaps driven away by her gatekeeping or chose to leave on their own because they didn't want to be subjects of her personal biases.
I fear that only then might true conditions for a dialogue regarding the improvement of the PDF be established with the users, provided there is actually a sincere desire to do so.
rustywalker42 said:Same here. I wish leadership would handle this like adults instead of just locking the thread with some quick comment from an admin or a mod (hopefully it doesn't come to that).
The problems are obvious. Look at the polls, look at past threads, or just talk to the people running into the same wall with this specific moderator. To be clear, I have nothing against Vojky or Charles Thomas70; my issue is strictly with the moderator in question.
The worst part? This Law subforum has basically become her own private fiefdom. People are getting banned under vague rules. Getting hit with a 30-point penalty for a "rule violation" is like being fined by the highway patrol because they decided the speed limit should have been different today—if you catch my drift.
The moderator herself constantly posts these short, unprofessional messages that don't belong on a forum like this. It feels more like she's just "chatting" with users. I won't go into detail; just read her posts on the first page of the Law subforum.
And then there's the whole thing about her holding grudges from old arguments and using them later. I don't even need to bring it up; other users have said it, and I've experienced it myself several times.
rustywalker42 said:Same here. I wish leadership would handle this like adults instead of just locking the thread with some quick comment from an admin or a mod (hopefully it doesn't come to that).
The problems are obvious. Look at the polls, look at past threads, or just talk to the people running into the same wall with this specific moderator. To be clear, I have nothing against Vojky or Charles Thomas70; my issue is strictly with the moderator in question.
The worst part? This Law subforum has basically become her own private fiefdom. People are getting banned under vague rules. Getting hit with a 30-point penalty for a "rule violation" is like being fined by the highway patrol because they decided the speed limit should have been different today—if you catch my drift.
The moderator herself constantly posts these short, unprofessional messages that don't belong on a forum like this. It feels more like she's just "chatting" with users. I won't go into detail; just read her posts on the first page of the Law subforum.
And then there's the whole thing about her holding grudges from old arguments and using them later. I don't even need to bring it up; other users have said it, and I've experienced it myself several times.
Amanda Stewart7 said:But hey... we've definitely crossed paths before😍, and I remember thinking how all women fall for red heels... provided they're worn by someone who is, well... actually smart.🙂
brightridge59 said:And of course she won't. Honestly, neither would I. 🤷
I remember people giving me all sorts of advice back then, but I just wasn't listening.
Even when I finally decided to take action, I had the full support of my friends, my family—everyone was behind me—and yet, things still didn't turn out well. It’s because at the end of the day, they can't fight against themselves.
And they can't, simply because they don't want to. 🙂
That is truly the hardest part, when there is no admission of the problem. They convince themselves that they don't need anyone or anything, and that they can handle it all on their own.Honey, the truth is you don't actually want to leave. You should be honest with yourself and everyone else about that.
Your own choice is to stay with an addict.
👍
Perhaps we should just rename this entire thread to "Emotional Support for Everyone Dealing with Addicts"? 🤔
@ Christian Sanchez4 😍
Regarding our friend here:
The search function isn't working for me right now, and I really don't have the patience to scroll through everything manually, but there are two specific threads on this forum that you really ought to read. There's one called "Addiction"—it follows a young, idealistic user who thinks he can take on the whole system 😬 by using drugs.
Then there's "Addicts, please help"—a story about a girl who ended up in a relationship with an "ex"-addict, only to have her heart broken when she realized he had relapsed.
You'll find just about everything you need to know there; besides, many of us who are replying to you now were posting about these very same issues back then.
brightridge59 said:And of course she won't. Honestly, neither would I. 🤷
I remember people giving me all sorts of advice back then, but I just wasn't listening.
Even when I finally decided to take action, I had the full support of my friends, my family—everyone was behind me—and yet, things still didn't turn out well. It’s because at the end of the day, they can't fight against themselves.
And they can't, simply because they don't want to. 🙂
That is truly the hardest part, when there is no admission of the problem. They convince themselves that they don't need anyone or anything, and that they can handle it all on their own.Honey, the truth is you don't actually want to leave. You should be honest with yourself and everyone else about that.
Your own choice is to stay with an addict.
👍
Perhaps we should just rename this entire thread to "Emotional Support for Everyone Dealing with Addicts"? 🤔
@ Christian Sanchez4 😍
Regarding our friend here:
The search function isn't working for me right now, and I really don't have the patience to scroll through everything manually, but there are two specific threads on this forum that you really ought to read. There's one called "Addiction"—it follows a young, idealistic user who thinks he can take on the whole system 😬 by using drugs.
Then there's "Addicts, please help"—a story about a girl who ended up in a relationship with an "ex"-addict, only to have her heart broken when she realized he had relapsed.
You'll find just about everything you need to know there; besides, many of us who are replying to you now were posting about these very same issues back then.
Ronald Rogers27 said:"Dear _Saveta_, I’m coming to you with a sincere plea to help me solve a problem that is serious, heavy, and honestly driving me to the brink of madness. I’m seeing this incredible girl—let's call her kappa_insomnije. I’ve never met anyone so beautiful, brave, educated, and sharp. Everything would be perfect if she weren't an ex-addict. She’s been 'clean' for three years now, having quit heroin for good, and she really threw herself back into life and her studies at the University of California. She’s finishing her law degree with straight A's, and I actually thought about hiring her at my dad’s firm. But my whole family is against us. They say I’ve lost my mind, that I'm dating a junkie who lies to me, drugs behind my back, and just uses me for my money to fund her habit. They call me naive, a 'walking ATM.' Dear _Saveta_, you’re my last hope!" Zvonko.
"Dear Zvonko, your situation is a dead end unless you walk away. You need to run from this woman, kappa_insomnije, headfirst. If I were in your shoes, knowing everything I know—I’d get out. I’d cry, I'd mourn, I'd wipe my tears, pick up the pieces of my heart, and move on. Leaving is much less painful than staying. But it’s not just about avoiding pain; it’s about doing what’s right for yourself. It is the right thing to do!
Have you lost your mind, Zvonko? Giving a job to an addict who can't even find her own direction in life? She lies, she cheats, she steals. Don't believe a single word she says, because her being 'clean' is just for show. People like that should NEVER be given jobs; they should be blacklisted forever for what they do to society and their loved ones.
Are you even aware, Zvonko, that only about 5% of addicts actually make it out of the grip of drugs? And even within that 5%, you can NEVER be 1000% sure that someone like kappa_insomnije won't crawl back to heroin.
Whatever you decide, you’re doing it entirely at your own risk.
Sincerely, Vasa _Saveta_
_______
Ronald Rogers27