It’s hard to imagine the monetary situation untangling itself easily or anytime soon. We’re looking at years of fallout, and I doubt the average American's standard of living will stay afloat during the process.
$40 billion a month, yet there’s no end date in sight. If we don't see actual improvements in the unemployment rate, we're going to have to push forward with the blockade...
Right now, I'm mostly preoccupied with the tug-of-war between inflation and deflation, specifically wondering which one hits first and how the sequence will play out. That’s why I think it makes sense to hold some cash on hand—even if it means taking a hit if prices drop.
Physical gold and silver can certainly become part of a bubble. Back in 1980 here in the US, there was a moment when the total value of gold held in reserves actually outpaced the actual dollars in circulation. The reality is that hardly anyone cares about precious metals right now, so they aren't in a bubble yet. The fundamental strength of gold and silver is that they can't be easily manufactured, which makes them honest money. For the time being, the whole system lacks that honesty, and eventually, some kind of equilibrium will have to be found.
The amount pumped into the system practically guarantees double-digit inflation. Meanwhile, China is offloading 400 tons of gold just to patch up their budget holes...
Reporting from the front lines here—I work in a pharmacy, and I’m seeing price hikes of 20-30% from most major international brands. These aren't just minor adjustments; we're talking about essential goods people pay for with hard cash. Something that used to cost $6.00 is now sitting at 26. This isn't a gradual creep either; it's a jump. For instance, an item that was 52 is now 61 Dollars. The shift over the last six months to a year has been glaringly obvious. When you factor in electricity and gas, I don't care who tries to claim inflation is stuck at 2%. Even if things like mobile phone plans are getting cheaper... Most of these price surges are the direct result of money printing and the subsequent devaluation of our currency. What happens when the effects of the Federal Reserve's actions from 2011 finally hit home?
Europeans visiting the Chinese, who sit on massive foreign exchange reserves. Some deal was likely struck to keep this "perpetual motion machine" running. The only question is the cost. The Chinese made a smart move opening up to capital, yet they refused to implement multi-party politics; the state still maintains ownership over the profitable companies. It is a completely different mindset from the European approach, where everything is constantly being sold off. It is worth noting that the current US Federal Government has issued some "more normal statements," suggesting things like no privatization of ExxonMobil. Had such a policy been in place from the start, we would be positioned much better today. Still, you can't ignore the rating agencies. I honestly don't understand how the US can be stuck at BBB- when its deficit is far more manageable than, say, some other nations. Even if we acknowledge that the USA is the world's largest economy, it certainly cannot have a better outlook than America. In circumstances where a downgrade almost always follows news that appears favorable for the dollar, expecting truly objective ratings is difficult. And inflation? Don't get me started. It is nearing 10%, and under these conditions, the dollar simply cannot maintain its former strength. On the other hand, gold continues to defy many people's expectations, which suggests we are nowhere near a recovery. There is too much toxic debt and far too much government spending allocated to various groups that could easily be avoided. It is a genuine miracle that this Ponzi scheme still functions given the current consumption-to-production ratio. My view remains: hold gold. However, if the Chinese decide to fully enter the fray, things could get messy and complicated very quickly. Again, I truly believe that for a country with such a massive population, multi-party politics isn't advisable; it would lead to the fragmentation of all state assets. Money and power corrupt, but here, it stays under control. As much as it is. Regardless of anything else, no one can deny the Chinese have a much more favorable economic position and growth potential, even with their bubbles. Certainly more so compared to the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, all the manipulation is futile if there is no real foundation for growth. Just like there is no real money.
Andrew Booth29 said:Actually, no. Hyperinflation hits when the government starts printing non-credit money—basically just monetizing its own debt to plug a massive deficit. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, sure, but hyperinflation? That’s a purely political one. 🧐
It’s like if Peter shows up and you give him your vote, then Edward shows up and you give him yours just so someone else doesn't get it, then this guy shows up, then that guy, and eventually everyone is telling everyone else to cut back first... It's an inevitable spiral. A couple of fruit flies can ruin an entire liter of wine, but they don't stand a chance when there's a whole vat of it... That is why we need to cut unnecessary spending, learn to live more modestly, and accept that "less is more." For a regular person, that actually matters, and it makes money hold some value. On the other hand, I have zero doubt we are heading toward squandering even the few remaining resources just so the bureaucracy can keep running for another year or two while taking on even more debt. People's expectations are completely unrealistic; life used to be far simpler, yet people managed. Now, we need to scale back, reinvest what we've gained into productive capacities, wait out the inflation in the Eurozone, and try to adapt. Trying to finance a bloated $15 billion deficit by printing more dollars would be the path to South Africa. We are tied to the dollar, so that isn't an option here; measures must be coordinated because without stabilizing the currency, everything goes to hell. Who would trust the strength of our currency based on what kind of production we actually have? The move is to take on debt while the dollar hasn't inflated too much—or better yet, borrow in dollars—cut the deficit so we can afford to buy gold and, most importantly, protect our resources. Resources are real wealth; paper is not. Once the heavy hitters start circling, it will be hard for outsiders to strip us bare. Internal balance is everything...
Taking out a loan right now? Not exactly a brilliant move. Just look at what happened in Greece or check out the threads here regarding the USD exchange rate—people aren't exactly optimistic. Things are looking pretty grim across Europe: Ireland, Spain, Canada, you name it. At the very least, keep this in mind and read the original post:
placidranger said:There isn't a monetary issue—it's the tax policy right from the jump. That’s what I’m telling you. Let’s get serious for a second—what would actually happen if a nobleman just decided to stop collecting taxes altogether?
If you cut taxes, people spend less. Simple math. But if spending drops, where does the average Joe get his cash? Someone else—certainly not the guy working a 9-to-5—has to take the hit in the red to make that whole equation work. It should be the ones actually generating the wealth doing the heavy lifting.
The average American will find their way to cash just like they always have. Only this time, they’ll actually be able to afford more—less tax drag means a better standard of living. Simple as that. The noblemen won't be able to spend quite like they used to, though who really knows where all that money was going? It certainly wasn't all trickling back down to the working class. If it were, we’d have a perfectly closed loop running indefinitely—you give to me, I give to you. $33Look, you can try me if you want—but don't expect much. $33 I agree.
I don't have much interest in the situation here in the States—I simply don't know enough about it to weigh in. But let's be clear: the gold standard was a scam from the jump. Once you start seeing banks multiplying money through sheer leverage, the whole idea of being "backed by gold" becomes a total farce. The cash isn't actually covered by bullion because the banks have already manufactured more than exists. It’s exactly like that scene in *The Wizard of Oz* where they explain how the gold standard is just a mechanism to create economic slavery. Having a finite supply of gold is nothing more than a bottleneck; it prevents the money supply from keeping pace with the actual growth of total value.
Gold is far too expensive to be practical—it’s just a waste of resources to try and anchor our currency to some heavy metal. Using a gold standard to guarantee value is a fundamentally flawed concept. Honestly, anyone actually pushing for a return to the gold standard is clearly looking to dismantle the country from the inside out.
It would be wise for you to brush up on some history.
Then the landlord would be putty in their hands. Some people are just stuck in the Stone Age...🤣
You can bet my money that the concept of non-credit money isn't going to fly. 1. You aren't the ones holding the reins of power. It is incredibly easy to spin a narrative so that an idea turns into a disaster... just to achieve some other ulterior motive. Do you honestly believe Congress would pass a decision that fundamentally shifts the system to favor the average citizen over big capital and massive cash flows? 2. Even if it did pass, people tend to corrupt things eventually. That is precisely why we are in this mess right now—human greed and malice.
Your idea is worth considering as a brief stepping stone toward addressing the root cause. Naturally, that stepping stone would need to include reparations paid out in silver and gold.
And one more thing... By pumping money into the system through budget deficits—especially when it isn't distributed equally among everyone—you are violating the Constitution. On that basis alone, you're sowing the seeds of a new kind of evil; you're essentially taking from some to give to others. Budget deficits should be outlawed, and any funds seized through taxpayer-funded bailouts should be returned to people in terms of real purchasing power. I don't doubt your intentions are good, but reality is a far cry from what you consider "good." It's very far indeed...
I’m just curious—why on earth do you all think you’re so inherently honest? Don't you see that everything moves in cycles, and that people eventually lose their way? Whether it's now or a few generations down the line... That original group gained power because they believed they were acting "for the good of the community," which is how we ended up with all these various charitable foundations and whatnot... Abandon this obsession with monetary profit. Instead, focus on the ability to consume without being shackled by credit, ensuring that all productivity is reflected in increased purchasing power. Essentially, if there's any talk of profit, it has to be zero; labor should be stored directly in currency so it can actually be used for consumption. Anything else is just a scam waiting to happen.
Robert Vaughn10 says: So—eliminate the deficit, eliminate interest, and favor savings and lending from the same pool. If anyone actually wants to turn a profit in that scenario, their only option would be through direct investment.
How on earth can you just "eliminate" interest? It’s the very thing that incentivizes saving and generates the capital necessary for production investments! To make that work, interest rates would need to sit at least 2 to 3% above money inflation. Of course, in a stabilized monetary system, inflation wouldn't even exist—so why in the world would anyone bother keeping their money in a bank instead of under a mattress if they weren't earning interest? In our current mess of an inflationary monetary system, people keep their cash in banks regardless of whether the interest covers actual inflation, simply because it’s still better than nothing.
If I have to choose between currency that holds its value long-term and saving in a bank with an interest rate 1-2% higher than the official US inflation rate, I’m choosing currency stability. I won't even get started on how much could have been made by investing in gold ten years ago versus putting USD into savings. It's this monetary inflation that eventually catches up to you, and that's where people lose out by keeping money in the bank... If the money supply were theoretically constant—meaning we aren't calculating interest on non-existent money while simultaneously inflating it—then maybe we could discuss interest, assuming that was even feasible or if the term were even desired. But personally, I’d scrap it entirely. If interest were gone, the only way to actually earn a profit would be through direct investment. With interest as it stands, we aren't investing in production; we're just performing some kind of sacrificial ritual to manufacture "profit." We haven't actually produced anything; the bank just fattens itself up by charging interest on money that doesn't exist, squeezing ordinary people and wrecking the economy. My approach would be to push money toward investment as much as possible, so whoever wants to put their capital to work actually does. And let's face it, people are greedy; if they see an opportunity, they'll take it... Besides, I don't think it matters if some people decide to keep their cash at home. A smaller money supply would cover the same amount of goods and services, and prices would drop to attract that capital. That’s the goal: for the currency to gain strength... Since most people are driven by the desire for profit and a better standard of living, they would buy when things are cheap and sell when they are expensive. Demand would drive prices, and an equilibrium would eventually be found. All of this works if the majority is used to saving and isn't dependent on credit. Eventually, the pace slows down and serious consumption begins... liquidity "increases," and prices fall due to productivity gains. All that labor is stored in the currency rather than being lost to inflation... So, the idea that we can successfully protect ourselves with these kinds of interest rates in this specific situation is questionable. In my view, a system without interest is far more beneficial. I'm saying it's hard to kickstart a system like this, but once it's running...
Maria Thomas48, I hate to be the one to tell you this—especially since you seem to be trying to argue this point indirectly—but please don't take it personally, you just aren't grasping the core issue. Your fundamental misunderstanding is the belief that a recession can be prevented, or even avoided, simply by injecting more money into the system. It’s pure nonsense. A recession is a built-in mechanism of any functioning economy; you can't stop it just by printing more cash. No growth lasts forever. If that isn't clear... To wrap this up: forget about terms like profit, budget deficits, or non-credit money, because they aren't helping anyone here. Money shouldn't drive everything; instead, we should focus on the capacity for consumption. The goal should be to eliminate the deficit, scrap interest, and favor savings and lending from the same pool.If someone wants to make a living under that system, their only option would be through actual investment.At the same time, the purchasing power of money would steadily increase over time, because higher productivity and increased supply naturally drive prices down. So, rather than remaining dependent on constant infusions of credit or non-credit money, the government and the public need to learn how to make money serve them. We need to master it, not be slaves to it. Stop being dependent on money and start focusing on creation. Spend less than you earn and put your capital where an investor actually believes it will succeed—ideally, at least partially, into production. Once we reach that point, finding work will become easy for almost everyone. The primary way to earn an income will shift toward various forms of investment rather than pure speculation. In such a world, a recession would only occur when bad investments are made.
Maria Thomas48 said:I didn't actually say the economy *has* to grow. What I said was that you have to add deposited value for the system to function. If you don't, there’s no profit source and you end up in a recession. It feels like nobody here has actually looked at history or understands what drives the ups and downs of the USA.
A system without new money being added is basically the same thing as when credit expansion hits a wall—where credit levels just stay flat. You end up with a liquidity crunch regardless of how much cash is technically sitting somewhere else.
The bolded part is the main point. If that doesn't make sense, then there isn't really anything left to talk about.
We truly don't. You rely on injecting money and chasing profit, whereas I focus on creating and earning through my own labor—which holds true whether there is money circulating during a recession or not. To me, that is the only genuine "profit." As for recessions, they aren't desirable for clearing out bad business; they are necessary... Regarding the decline of the United States, you're just making sweeping generalizations while failing to address a mountain of other points. Forget credit and get back to producing. The United States is failing today precisely because everything has become too easy; it's all based on credit with zero actual foundation.
Maria Thomas48 said:I don't think your arguments hold up. Both those periods of growth were tied to industrial revolutions. If you read "Century War - William F. Engdahl" you'll realize the issue is actually about maintaining the gold standard. It's also worth watching the "The Money Masters" video where the authors also argue against that standard.
Gold, or any standard based on deposited value, just doesn't work over the long term. You simply can't grasp that those deposited values always need to increase for an economy to function. It's the exact same thing as when credit expansion stops. You end up with a depression regardless of how much money exists. It stays with the people who see that everyone else has run out of money to earn, so investment in business stops (a predictable tactic by banks).
Live long and be smart!
I honestly have no idea what kind of industry we're discussing regarding the Roman Empire. Regardless, they collapsed once they could no longer pay their debts credibly. But the fact remains: the USA developed—it didn't stagnate—and the purchasing power of money actually increased. If you want growth without actual substance, I have to tell you: that isn't happening. When I say "actual," I'm looking at the broader context. Also, you seem to ignore that no growth can go on forever; a crash follows eventually. The very fact that you claim something needs constant expansion proves the failure of such a system. That’s exactly what we’ve had so far, except you're just offering it in a slightly milder, different package. And why should we "grow" at all if there's no foundation for it? It's far more important to shift the economic weight from production toward consumption capacity. Too much is built on credit, and that needs to be cut back so that creditors are forced to think twice about who they lend to and why. The system I advocate for admittedly starts under much tougher conditions with a slower growth rate, but it is significantly more secure in every sense. Once that plane is in the air, it's nearly impossible to shoot down. I think you rely too heavily on raw numbers and not enough on perspective and actual ability to consume. I don't care about GDP if I can't afford to buy things. That’s why my system works: it forces everyone to actually earn their money rather than relying on "easy money" or credit. If prices drop as a result—and people call it a recession because the nominal GDP looks smaller—so be it. In reality, that is how you achieve true standard growth. Everything broken in this current system needs to be ripped out, and the good parts kept. Just to be clear: no massive bureaucracy, no easy handouts... And here's a little snapshot from 1966 from my father's life to wrap things up... When my father went on his high school graduation trip for fifteen days, his mother didn't pack him meat or liver; she packed spleen and ten hard-boiled eggs for the whole trip. People had vineyards, cows, horses, pigs—life was modest, but genuinely abundant. That’s how things were done, and that’s how progress happened. A practical, real-world example... and one that actually worked... And yes, he did get some pocket money, so he ended up buying chocolate bars when nobody else could find any...
Maria Thomas48 said:I found something for anyone looking to dig a little deeper Warren Mosler "7 Deadly Economic Policy Frauds"
It's all in English, but it breaks down how financing the USA budget deficit through credit leads straight into seven specific deceptions. The author is a big proponent of Chartalism. If your English is up to par, you’ll find some really solid, well-argued breakdowns of these frauds. If you aren't feeling too confident with your English, you can always run parts of it through a translator.
Stay smart out there.
I don't even need to read it. It's all obvious. When the gold standard was introduced, all that drained capital had to be paid back to the American people in gold and silver, as that is the only legal tender under their Constitution. Similarly, the European Union should return the money used for bailouts to the taxpayers of specific member states, adjusted for the purchasing power at that time... or perhaps in metal, if inflation hits... actually, definitely in metal. The same applies to the US. We need a thorough investigation into the constitutionality of how privatization was handled and when it occurred. Furthermore, the state owes its taxpayers the very money used to bail out institutions like JP Morgan Chase. That should clearly be returned in silver and gold, especially if inflation occurs—which is almost a certainty. You can't bail out some people and not others; that violates the principle that everyone is equal under the Constitution. If you follow the money trail—who bought what with which bank's credit, and which bank was bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers using loans meant for resource acquisition—it becomes clear that everything needs to be paid back. Everything has an origin. But understand one thing: we are a small player, just a tiny boat in a vast ocean of global capital. What happens to us will be the same as everyone else... debt crushes everyone eventually. Not to mention, you can't charge interest on money that doesn't exist. The entire premise should be challenged on constitutional grounds if there's any basis for it. I believe we could demand the repayment of drained profits and interest in gold and silver; we have the math ready. It’s a mess, but it needs to be thought through and structured properly. So, when I advocate for a gold or even a silver standard, remember that this coin has many sides. As for history, the effectiveness of metal is proven. 1. The fall of the Roman Empire when they abandoned the gold standard. 2. The Rise of the USA during the 19th and first half of the 20th century while they were on the gold standard. Conclusion: it works.
You keep jumping in and muddying the waters. That isn't how a productive conversation works. Two decades ago, my family and I were already pointing out that corruption is the fundamental issue, and we have the evidence to back it up. I am not some puppet of the media; I’ve maintained my course, and I intend to keep doing so. Besides, did I ever claim this system was functional? Not once. In fact, the system is completely broken—you just refuse to overhaul it, preferring to ignore the rot and stick to the status quo. The core issue is your refusal to move past outdated concepts of paper currency and money itself. My analysis focuses on honest money strictly as a medium of exchange—specifically regarding its production and the absence of debt erasure—rather than focusing on money as an end in itself. Centering everything around money is precisely why we are stuck. Instead of obsessing over GDP, interest rates, and endless statistics, the focus should shift toward actual production and the capacity to consume from that production. Naturally, this assumes we preserve our existing resources. Debt isn't the dealbreaker if it's managed through sensible spending cuts, but the real nightmare is selling off assets like ExxonMobil, Pfizer, or Kraft Heinz. This is what we were discussing twenty years ago, and it remains true today. We have the proof. Even when we lost political ground because of these stances, we didn't abandon our principles. Then and now. So, my stance remains: corruption and the pursuit of pure profit are the root problems. Once those ideas are discarded, we can actually discuss how to outmaneuver those who have consolidated most of the wealth into gold, ensuring wealth is distributed more evenly and balanced. There is a wide spectrum of solutions available, provided one is willing to reject greed, corruption, and this interest-based system. If you aren't willing to walk that path, you'll simply learn the hard way. It is impossible to solve this without cooperating with people like you; otherwise, we are merely applying half-measures rather than addressing the whole problem.