Maria Thomas48 said:They teorovat that corrupt governments drive nations toward bad policy, essentially setting them up for ruin—all orchestrated by big bankers back in the 80s. That's the idea in the book "Century War - William F. Engdahl".
Corruption and greed aren't visible in those formulas trying to link budget deficits to national profits. Is it just you guys who see that?
And why is it any surprise that only the few who haven't been brainwashed by the media actually see what's happening? You keep shifting the goalposts. I said corruption is systemic because it’s human nature. What some bankers supposedly said isn't my concern. And that's exactly why the people in this country are no longer in control: they allowed it. That is the sole reason. If you want to stick to math, then take a look at the sheer amount of wasteful spending from the 1990s to now... and consider the root cause of those expenses, one way or another.
You just can't seem to grasp that corruption is the root cause here. And you think I’m not fighting for this country? Back in 1990, my family was already sounding the alarms about the fallout from corruption—and yes, I have the receipts to prove it. Where were you then? Not to mention the significant financial hit I took because of government mismanagement. So, please, stop spreading misinformation and trying to muddy the waters when there are clear counterarguments. This isn't the first time you've been practically insulting, though I stayed quiet just to keep this discussion civil. The bottom line is this: once you strip away the corruption, the greed, and the obsession with profit, then we can talk. All I want is to live a normal life, much like how the world functioned until 1971 under the gold standard.
Man, I’m with you—it’s a total scam. But look at the root of the issue here. Do you actually want profit, or not? If you do, you're just taking it from someone else... and that isn't right. On the other hand, we should be aiming for a system built on absolute precision—nothing more, nothing less. No "profit," but no theft either. If you're chasing profit, how are you any different from the people who are actually stealing? Forget the word "profit." Instead, stick to the principle of an exact weight, an accurate measurement. And yeah... they used to mix in copper and create all sorts of discrepancies. But nowadays, we know exactly how much gold is in a coin versus how much copper. We look at the pure mass of the gold, not just the total weight of the coin. Once they started adding copper, they failed. It was inevitable.
Maria Thomas48 said:The topic here is the financial system and where the money actually comes from. It’s just foolish to claim that corruption is the reason people refuse to accept the truth about how the system works. Or honestly, it's more like stupidity is what keeps people from realizing that corruption isn't the root cause. It's just a byproduct of the stupidity of those making these claims.
You have to be joking... Corruption is the starting point and the very root of the problem. It permeates everything, driven entirely by human greed. So please, spare me your "truths." A system should function automatically, rather than constantly being subject to some supposed "miracle fix." I sincerely hope we’ve seen enough of these "solutions" throughout history.
Maria Thomas48 said:There are just so many words scattered across all these different sentences that I can't even begin to wrap my head around what the actual point of the reply is. 😕
And what else should a sentence be made of if not words? If you can't follow an answer that you deem "too dense" when it's actually incredibly simple, then we're done here.
Look, you’re stubbornly refusing to accept that people are inherently corruptible. They break eventually. That’s the root of the issue. It’s the only issue. If I can't make you understand that, there's no point in talking. Forget this entire system and its statistics; it's finished. It's already dead; we're just waiting for the execution. Deflation isn't a logical solution because it would trigger a revolution. Inflation or hyperinflation, however, wipes out debt—which will be a disaster for many—while capital migrates into precious metals, resetting all values to positive territory. The goal should be simple: pull the rug out from under the speculators. As long as there is even a tiny loophole in the law, speculators will find a way to exploit it and poison the system. That must be prevented at all costs. I suggest a maximum cap of 20%—making it difficult enough to discourage them—but apparently, we have to learn the hard way. Good intentions don't matter much if you aren't actually competent. Once people realize "easy money" is gone and start saving again, things will balance out. People will finally value creation over consuming nothingness fueled by debt. And then what? If everyone holds gold and silver, or if you're paid in real currency? The priority is eliminating interest and this current structure, because that's where the real money is manufactured and drained. Once a true standard is established, no matter how harsh the transition, you'll come out on top. But globally, we will pay for this through a temporary drop in living standards. We have to, because we allowed corruption to creep in. Some saw that coming back in the late '70s... so a decline in the standard of living is now inevitable. There's no avoiding it. My advice: adapt to reality instead of trying to bend the world to fit your desires, no matter how noble they may be. So, one last time: people are corruptible and prone to decay. You, me, anyone—nobody is perfect. But the system must function flawlessly—if it's ever going to function at all—because it only takes one failure to ruin the work of nine others. We shouldn't be offering similar short-term fixes for a long-term problem. Once a certain level of stability is achieved through sheer effort, the pace should slow down and move into maintenance mode. It is fundamentally wrong for anyone to print money—be it a bank, the government, or any other entity. Forget the deficit.
Just a few points, as it seems we aren't on the same page. Who said anything about taking out a loan? You save money; then you have the capacity to borrow easily. And if a loan is taken, it should be repaid in gold or hard currency. I prefer precious metals—there’s no room for fraud there. That way, the lender will think twice about who they lend to and why. I don't know where this idea comes from that transfers can't be made in gold if prices skyrocket. Just because you dislike the idea doesn't mean it isn't reality. Yes, manipulation happens; one must adapt to it. Regarding slavery: if you insist everything boils down to mathematics, you're wrong. Humans are driven by subjective impulses and assessments. Let's look at that math. That math shows that the US imports twice as much as it exports. That is a roadmap to bankruptcy. If we are importing twice as much, we have to ask why. The answer lies in people's desire to live comfortably. It isn't about how they do it; it's just that they want comfort and a certain sense of "dignity." And if you'll permit my subjective impression, you seem to be heading in that same direction. Printing money is an evil. You, or those who follow you, claim to be the "good ones" who won't print. Sure. Very convincing. As for your claim that debt cannot be wiped out by inflation or hyperinflation... You are looking at the big picture, which is fine, but you're ignoring the dynamics. Inflation is a process, and it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Once again, I point to the USA. Look at the numbers; you'll see that hyperinflation is already becoming almost inevitable. It only takes a massive influx of cash into a single asset class—say, food or energy—for overall confidence in the currency to vanish. It is perfectly logical that money flows into those specific classes because food and energy are necessities. When credit is abundant, prices in almost every other asset class tend to drop. Capital flows toward survival essentials... leading to inflation and hyperinflation. This $600 billion is intended specifically to offset all the value "killed" by loan repayments. Eventually, when you no longer want a mere representative of value, paper becomes what it truly is. On the other hand, one must acknowledge the fact that the world developed quite well under the gold standard until 1971. The existence of wars was merely a reflection of human greed. Today, wars aren't fought on battlefields; everything is handled remotely. The core issue remains human greed; only the effects and models have changed. That is the problem we need to solve. We must address the root cause rather than clinging to an obsolete model of paper money and printing presses where it isn't Jerry doing the printing, but Mark. As much desire for comfort leads to slavery, as much modesty leads to freedom. My ancestors lived this way, and we will continue to do so.
Maria Thomas48 Asks: Your perspective still aligns perfectly with a system built entirely on credit. If you attempt to implement commodity-based measures using finite resources, you’re headed for massive trouble down the road. According to 1996 data, two-thirds of the world's gold is held by The Money Masters, specifically through the IMF and the World Bank. How exactly do you plan on getting your hands on that much gold? If you give them the authority to print money, you won't even have any money left of your own. And let's be honest—they only issue currency for the purpose of lending it out.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. In the system I’m advocating for, debt doesn't even exist—gold isn't someone else's liability. We should have been thinking ahead instead of running massive deficits and turning a blind eye to corruption. Now, we're just past the point of easy fixes. And frankly, why would you or I be any more honest than the people currently in power? If we aren't, then the next generation will just fall into the same traps and return to business as usual. You have to solve the problem at the root rather than assuming we're somehow morally superior to the people stealing from us right now. We basically robbed ourselves by allowing corruption to take hold, and this is the bill coming due. My family saw it clearly back in the early 90s, right after the elections: the foundation was fundamentally broken. This isn't just an economic issue; it goes much deeper. That is where the solution lies. Period.
Quincy:
Doesn't it bother you that the entire system currently hinges on bank interest rates decided by a tiny handful of people? Everyone wants a piece of the action and a slice of the profit, but nobody seems concerned that there isn't any actual money coming in to cover it all.
The idea that debt will simply vanish is baseless. Debt is nothing more than a lever used to exert pressure and maintain control. It works because you can't settle it with physical goods; you have to pay it back using money that hasn't even been printed yet—interest. The only logical alternative is paying in gold. Honestly, I suspect any creditor would jump at the chance to be paid in gold. It allows lenders to hoard the metal as collateral for issuing more credit, while the rest of us just get worked harder.
The mere concept of spending money you don't actually have—relying on credit to bridge the gap—is nothing more than a fast track to modern-day debt slavery.
My plan addresses the internal financial framework directly. You have to balance that trade deficit through active intervention; you simply cannot offset a trade debt like that. By implementing a non-credit-based system across all nations, the desperate need to export just to stay afloat disappears. It would make managing those trade imbalances significantly easier.
The solution lies in implementing a unified currency or converting all non-credit currencies held against agreed-upon issuances.
Here is the only thing worth noting: a massive currency outflow suggests we might actually have the opportunity to scale back the issuance of non-credible money, given that the local money supply has shrunk. For this to work, the outflow must remain lower than the rate of money creation. If we cross that line, the government could find itself completely stranded, lacking any foundation to issue new currency. Essentially, we need to ensure the flow of capital with foreign markets remains balanced.
Debt gets erased by inflation. If that money printing goes unchecked, debt simply vanishes in the middle of hyperinflation. Just look at the US budget deficit compared to the rate of new money issuance. It’s mathematically impossible for the dollar to avoid hyperinflation at this level of spending and insolvency—unless they slash consumption, in which case we just deal with massive inflation instead. As the dollar collapses, everything else follows. Real wealth shifts straight into gold. The illusion of debt disappears.😉 If we aren't capable of living modestly and rebuilding the entire system from the ground up through actual labor and production, then we’ve essentially earned our own subjugation. Constant whining about who is to blame won't change anything. We need to adapt—live more simply and stay out of debt—rather than just reinventing the exact same broken system that someone will inevitably exploit again in 50 or 100 years, just like they have for the last two decades. People are inherently corruptible, and we need to get ahead of that decisively.
Maria Thomas48 said:The core problem is money and the balance of payments deficit. It’s basic math: if one nation runs a surplus, others must run a deficit. If a country can't cover that deficit with its own funds, it can't just borrow to bridge the gap either. Taking out credit just means you end up owing even more than you originally lacked. This is what people usually call living beyond your means.
With bartering, there's no such thing as spending unearned money.
Is there a better way to handle trade without piling on debt? Maybe a non-credit based currency at the state level specifically for international commerce. Developing nations could receive more of it, which would allow developed countries to sell their products and maintain a surplus in their balance of payments without creating a deficit elsewhere—since the money was essentially a gift. It sounds like science fiction, but it could work.
Your argument assumes we're stuck in this current credit system where money is basically conjured out of thin air. That's fair. But consider if gold were the primary medium. A universal currency where everything stays positive and debt disappears. It’s either gold, silver, or nothing—cash and carry. Trading commodities is a better idea, but it's still impractical because it isn't the government trading; it's individual entities within and between nations. Keep in mind, just having a printing press is a fast track to ruin. So, I hate to burst your bubble, but despite your good intentions, people are inherently flawed, making your plan practically impossible. A system needs to function automatically rather than relying on a specific group of people to hold all the cards... people eventually get greedy, and then it's back to square one. It would be better to just wipe the debt clean and start from scratch—at least we wouldn't be starting in the red. Precious metals could make that happen, and then we could slowly work our way toward a higher standard of living. One step at a time. 😉
What you’re suggesting about these trade deals is simply unrealistic. Who exactly is supposed to be making these deals? An importer of bananas can't exactly sacrifice lives when they don't even have the resources to begin with. And who, exactly, is handling the banana imports? There has to be some sort of mechanism, a medium, that bridges those two values and connects the producer to the consumer. The core issue isn't money itself; it's the fabrication of currency and the interest charged on that imaginary money.
I don't really have much to say about that. It's just one of those things. Not my thing. I tend to stay away from that kind of content. It's fine if other people like it, I guess. Just not for me. Anyway, moving on. Maria Thomas48 says: What else is there to say besides echoing what Mark Rothra? Honestly, you can't get much higher than a fool, except maybe for the stubborn ones. 🙏 Not every business needs to turn a profit every single second. That’s just silly. It’s like saying every student in an American classroom has to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA to be considered successful. A company's profit is really just whatever is left over after you handle payroll, reinvestment, and all those other overhead costs. If a firm breaks even—basically operating at zero—but they’re still paying their employees on time and investing back into the business, that’s actually doing fine. If they lose money one year, maybe they restructure, or maybe they go under the next year, and that's also just part of the process. That is simply how capitalism works. The strongest players survive the intense competition in the US market. Honestly, if every single entity were turning a profit simultaneously, profit wouldn't even exist as a concept. For that to happen, everyone would have to be producing more goods and services than they consume, or some aliens would have to be dumping extra resources into our economy. You've basically just invented a perpetual motion machine. Nice try though.
I'm not trying to get you guys to give up on proving the impossible. I just want you to realize that the actual truth is right there, laid out plain and simple by the math of any system that isn't constantly being pumped with fresh capital.
It’s always nice to hear people say that not everyone can be successful. It sounds fair. But if we're being honest, if you aren't succeeding, you should be working from zero, not working from a deficit. A loss shouldn't be an endless well for someone else to get rich off of. It should just be a temporary thing that happens when things fall apart. You can see this clearly if you just look at an Excel spreadsheet. In the real world, though, they hide it behind loans. They just call it growth in loan placements.
The data shows there's just no way for everyone to save even a single dollar a day. If they tried, the government would have to take on an extra $1.44 billion in debt every year just to cover the population—which isn't really "saving" anything anyway, since the national debt already dwarfs any potential savings. And honestly, that number doesn't change based on whether people are working 8-hour shifts or 16-hour shifts. It’s impossible under these conditions, regardless of how much effort you put in. So, this proves that calling Americans lazy is just nonsense. When imports equal exports, or when we're importing more than we export, you can work yourselves to death and it won't show up in your wallet by the end of the year. The money for all that labor simply won't exist. You can't link our productivity to how hard we work; it's actually tied to how poorly the money is regulated within the system. When imports exceed exports, the state tries to use its trade surplus as a source of funding on the importer's account. That's not a solution. Another country can't just compensate for that kind of deficit, and it only pushes them faster toward massive debt.
This whole discovery is pretty wild. It actually gets my blood pumping because you can clearly see all the cracks in our current system. And the fix—well, one of the possible solutions that's already floating around online—is coming from someone who isn't even an economist.
The whole forest of questions starts as an extension of the monetary issue. It all points toward a kind of economic enslavement through the banking system's debt creation process. And the first question is: Why are we just letting this happen? It’s worth asking whose interests actually come first in this country. We talk about changing the laws, but then what? We just wait around. I don't get why there's this hesitation to face the consequences of standing up for ourselves. We have a right to not be economically exploited, plain and simple. Just because they're doing it to everyone else doesn't make it okay for them to do it to us. By what authority? Any agreement that causes harm should be voided, and it can be. You have to fight for your rights. You really do. Nobody wants to connect the dots between that era of economic slavery and how things actually look right now in our economy, our society, and our financial systems. It’s all there if you look. Everyone just ignores the link.
I’m not looking for a debate here, but I definitely agree on the need for reform. I can’t tell if you’re conflating actual value with money. Money is just a proxy for value; pumping more cash into the system doesn't fix anything. Every time you expand the money supply, you're just diluting it. Your argument about productivity and services holds weight—that's where growth should come from. Without getting into how capital flows through different asset classes to fuel speculation, you'll find it nearly impossible to pull that liquidity back once service and product demand drops. Instead, the system will just force you to keep pumping, feeding the illusion that everything revolves around cash flow, which is false. That’s why GDP means nothing to me; it can be artificially inflated through debt. You can't fake real productivity. To me, the answer is obvious: we don't need this credit system where money is conjured out of thin air via computer keystrokes. We need real money with a fixed supply. A stable quantity prevents the deception of borrowing from the future, which is exactly what printing money does. Lending should only be backed by real money and actual stores of value—no steroids... to use a sports metaphor. I dislike this whole non-credit-based money concept for several reasons. But we are in complete agreement that the current credit system, with its massive scale of debt and constant money printing, is essentially robbing us. Just some thoughts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Elizabeth Harris11 said:Honestly, I’m not losing any sleep over them—they can print as much as they want. At the end of the day, the American people are already swimming in debt anyway.
I think you're mistaken. Once you lose control over the value of paper currency... Their economy maintains a relatively balanced import-export ratio. Proportionally speaking, it sits right about there—they are primarily a service-based economy. Now, look at our own perspective, and you'll see exactly where the US is headed. They aren't just printing "a little." There is an announced $600 billion coming down the pipeline over the next eight months alone. Delaying the inevitable realization only intensifies the problems later on. Their standard of living will plummet. We already have over 40 million people standing in food lines. Of course, it takes time for a giant like that to collapse. But from a long-term perspective, things are actually moving quite rapidly. They won't regain their former strength until they pivot back to manufacturing. And they certainly have the resources to do it...
crimsonfalcon10 said:There is a massive difference between keeping money in a bank to earn interest and stashing cash under a mattress, which is what happens in a non-credit system... Let's wait for Mr. Century's answer regarding what percentage of the US GDP he predicts will go toward profit in his system, and then things will be much clearer...
Sure, the standard defense for this setup is that interest rewards savers. On paper, it sounds fine. But let’s be real: this is just various forms of paper manipulation. The sheer volume of credit being issued means the money typed into a ledger somewhere is impossible to pay back. That’s where Nostradamus is right. The ratio is simply too bloated to close the loop. Typing numbers into a computer isn't "saving" anything. We aren't defending savers here; we are calling out manipulation that steals from them by diluting their value. We need to cut off the ability to just conjure numbers out of thin air.😁
crimsonfalcon10 said:Just one question... how exactly do you plan to solve things through a non-credit system? How will that boost American exports? How will it improve the standard of living for the average American citizen? How will you prevent the circulation of money within the system from slowing down? How will you curb excessive inflation? How will you determine fair prices for new products? How will you combat product shortages in the market? Or how will you deal with a surplus? I fear that when you truly contemplate these questions... you will realize that your proposed system is even more flawed than the credit-based one... your formulas may be accurate, but they solve nothing... they apply to perhaps one out of a thousand possible scenarios... the real question is how the system will handle the other 999 possibilities... how will this system defend itself against specific economic shocks?
By removing interest, you have essentially tied one hand behind your back while trying to steer the economy... if it is hard enough to steer with two hands, what do you think it is like with only one?
It is going to take a lot more time before you truly understand economics... ☕
Saving is mandatory, regardless of whether interest rates exist or not. Interest is nothing more than a noose around the neck of the economy, and we are seeing that clearly now. In a system backed by precious metals, prices drop, excesses are eliminated, and saving actually makes sense. How do you jumpstart growth? You roll up your sleeves and produce more. That drives prices down and purchasing power up. The beauty of a tangible economy is that it forces productivity; there's no room for fluff, and if something is off, the alarm sounds immediately. On the flip side, it guarantees stability and falling prices alongside higher productivity. That means lower wages initially—sacrifice, sure—but it also prevents manipulation. The problem is people are too soft for that, which is why triggering that kind of growth is so difficult. But once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop, and purchasing power climbs steadily. The formula is simple: work, more work, then a better standard of living, followed by more work again. Printing paper, manipulating the currency through endless schemes, and clear-cutting forests—all of that needs to be left in the past.
Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Mizuzul, the situation is being complicated by people—some out of sheer ignorance and others because they benefit from the chaos. The piece you quoted says everything that needs to be said; read it repeatedly until the logic takes hold. Human corruption is powerless against these mechanics. If Wall Street bankers pull liquidity from the system, just as they did to trigger the current crisis and every one before it, you simply inject enough capital to offset that withdrawal; the contraction becomes meaningless when you are effectively gifting the funds necessary to compensate for their hoarding. Conversely, if those same bankers begin flooding the market with cash to spark inflation, you reclaim that money through non-circulating taxes to build a budget surplus, rendering their maneuvers equally futile. When you hold sovereign power over the currency, private bankers lose their leverage entirely. Of course, this isn't arbitrary; you operate according to a strict formula that dictates the precise amount of money required in circulation. Before long, the speculators will tire of their games. They will settle into the predictable rhythm of collecting deposits and issuing loans from those reserves, avoiding the very crises they once manufactured. There isn't enough gold or precious metal to go around, particularly for developing nations, yet the formula I have presented is universal and available to anyone willing to use it.
Mr. Matthew Patel12, please re-read my previous point if you actually want an informed debate. Must I draw you a map? My assertion remains: people as a whole are corrupt. Who is this "you," and what government are we talking about? Surely you aren't suggesting that governments act solely in the public interest, or that bankers and politicians aren't deeply entwined through debt? If you truly believe what you're claiming, then I have nothing left to say...
Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. mizuzul, you are overcomplicating a situation that is actually quite straightforward. If you set your parameters such that k equals 5%, you are essentially injecting 5% liquidity into the system. If your calculation hits the mark, inflation remains nonexistent; if it misses, prices see a marginal uptick. You simply halt the issuance. If there is a shortage of capital, you inject more. The margin of error is negligible and easily corrected. When you pull money out of circulation, treat it as a budget surplus; when you put it back in, treat it as a stimulus. Your sole objective is to maintain zero inflation, nothing more. You withdraw funds like a tax and inject them like a gift. The discrepancy is minimal and quickly trends toward zero. Nothing else matters—only price stability.
On the contrary, things are complicated now, whereas they would be simple with gold. I don't know why you place such trust in politicians when corruption is a given. We all start life with principles, but over time, people forget those truths and chase profit, often at someone else's expense. Don't tell me you don't see that. This is how decadence sets in. With precious metals minted by the Federal Reserve, errors wouldn't exist. For example, copper by weight for small denominations up to $0.05 or $0.10, silver by weight for amounts up to $33, and gold by weight for values from 100 to $3333. Or some similar ratio. It would even allow our forests to recover. Given the limited supply of metals—and if we were careful with the copper—it's unlikely the Fed would ever think about flooding the market with coins... though the minting idea deserves further thought... It would also force lenders to think twice before issuing credit. Prices wouldn't just be stable; they would drop. Initially, one would have to work harder to achieve a higher standard of living, which is exactly what we need to avoid decadence, but later, purchasing power would be immense. A real economy would trigger an alarm much faster if spending exceeded income. Those are massive advantages compared to the current situation, where crises are merely delayed through money printing. Not to mention that most people would circulate precious metals, and the economy would actually function. Currently, it's far too easy to bribe and defraud people on a massive scale.
Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Mizuzul, tying our economy back to precious metals is nothing more than a regressive step backward. Who actually holds those reserves? The formula I provided is all that is required. Required money = dM. dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ; k = 5%, for instance. The total volume of money is dictated by the interplay between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. Supply must exceed demand; if they sit at parity, then k equals zero, and no additional capital is necessary. One could even revert to a barter system. However, when supply outstrips demand, you derive k, and you act accordingly based on that value. That is the entirety of it. Anything else is merely an unnecessary complication that ultimately reduces to this same principle.
It isn't that simple. You have to account for the social component, not just the math where you and Nostradamus reached your logical conclusion. This system suits the elites because it allows them to transfer wealth through market manipulation, currency fluctuations, interest rates, and so on. It doesn't matter if the elite holds the gold; once a fair standard is established, the majority will devour the manipulators—even if we're paying in micrograms. In that scenario, the majority holds the advantage. As long as paper fiat rules, manipulation and market distortion remain possible. That inevitably leads to impoverishment. The problem isn't a lack of paper; there's too much of it, and paper itself causes the distortion. Paper is inherently an unfair measure because the owner of the printing press, or a group of brokers and banks, can cheat the market using computers or other means. Introducing a new type of paper won't change the fact that the same people are in control; it just gives them more ammunition for further manipulation. Current reality proves me right.
Robert Vaughn10, it’s obvious this system is backwards. Claiming that not everyone can turn a profit is simply false. How did my ancestors, who answered to no one, generate wealth? They earned an income and spent less than they made. Who is stopping people from living that way today? It becomes complicated once governments step in, spending money that isn't actually theirs. Then there is the banking factor—interest rates, which, as you rightly pointed out, allow them to profit by issuing non-existent money, collecting interest, and frequently gambling on speculation rather than actual production. Trying to fix all of this using your proposed long-term method isn't the answer. The solution isn't just printing more paper; that should be obvious. Progress will only happen when we prioritize labor and production over mere paperwork. That isn't happening now, which is why the whole system is heading toward self-destruction. Nothing worth having comes easy, which is why I am proposing precious metals to accurately measure created value. Paper is a joke because it’s easily manipulated in any scenario, including yours. You need to account for that variable. While the math might hold up, the social component doesn't. Expecting people to ignore greed and forgo profit at the expense of others is, in my view, unrealistic. We need to eliminate that possibility, and precious metals are the only way to do it.