Posts by Robert Vaughn10

I won't quote the entire post; I'll just stick to a few facts.
Regarding money supply, the priority is funding the budget. That budget needs to be realistic. However, the reality is that only a fraction of that money actually exists physically. Still, the system would hold up if lending standards were strictly enforced—which they largely were, which is why it’s still standing.
The goal is to earn foreign currency, save it in a bank, and then have that bank buy dollars from the Federal Reserve using those reserves. More foreign currency means a stronger dollar and higher purchasing power.
As for profit, that's a matter for the state and its banks. It is certainly beneficial to have development banks offering reasonable interest rates. Ideally, these would be privately owned by domestic interests. It surprises me, though I suppose it makes sense, that someone like Croesus didn't incorporate such a lever into his strategy. Had he, he might have managed his savings more rationally through domestic accumulation instead of relying so heavily on foreign debt.
To say the current credit and financial system is problematic would be an understatement.
But again, if you maintain discipline—especially since major global currencies are inflating—you might end up being left holding nothing but worthless paper. All money tends toward its true intrinsic value, which is zero.
The US owes $12 trillion, Germany owes $4 trillion; everyone is in debt, not just America.
Ultimately, debts will be wiped out via inflation or perhaps even a massive bailout, and we'll find our place in that process. Debt simply needs to be monitored, given that other nations face even larger deficits and their currencies are inflating just as rapidly.
What you must focus on is increasing productivity and protecting real assets that shouldn't be sold off.
In that regard, it would be wise to borrow in dollars to buy gold, effectively tipping the scales in your favor.

Maria Thomas48 As stated by:
The thought is on point, but it’s incomplete. We all want to see a return that actually exceeds what we put in.

Yes, absolutely.

Even if it is... Gregory Williams7 I’ve stated it before: it is mathematically impossible for every nation to run a trade surplus at the same time.

I’m talking about achieving a better balance, not just fixing a deficit.

If some people are constantly pulling ahead, someone else is inevitably falling behind. It’s basic math—if they're always in the black, the rest of us are stuck in the red.

It doesn't hold water if you're actually creating new value.

Regarding the currency situation. The issue only exists if we end up with more domestic cash than foreign reserves. But that’s just a failure of logic. After all, what makes those foreign reserves valuable to us if our own currency holds no value for anyone else?

The reality is we’re importing twice as much as we’re exporting. In the Eurozone, import coverage sits at roughly 86% of exports.
No economy can survive with a ratio as broken as ours. Foreigners aren't interested in our currency, and frankly, they shouldn't be. That’s what the market decides—there's no arguing with that reality. If we actually focused on increasing production and exporting high-quality goods to bring in foreign exchange, maybe the conversation would be different.

Here’s the answer. When you overprint money beyond the actual value of newly created goods, that currency becomes non-convertible.

Now it’s practically impossible to convert outside the borders of the US, yet there isn't even an offering on the market.
The solution lies in fiscal discipline and production. Specifically, it comes down to that hard reality of fiscal discipline that forces your hand.

I’ve proven that creating any kind of new value requires a massive amount of capital that simply isn't there. Up until now, we've just masked the deficit by piling on debt. My findings show that within a closed system, those loans can never actually be repaid. In an open economy, Gregory Williams7 reached the same conclusion: it is mathematically impossible for everyone to maintain a trade surplus to fuel money supply. He’s right.

First, you have to actually create value. Only then can you print money to reflect that reality. Right now, we simply aren't producing enough. To get this whole engine running again, we're going to need a combination of sacrifice and much smarter capital allocation.

So, what now? Call me crazy and move on. My logical conclusions based on the evidence—which I simply copied and reformatted using different symbols—are correct.

I didn't call you crazy, and please don't drag me into that. We're just having a discussion.

You clearly can't grasp how debt is generated solely through inflation within the credit system.

Everyone is in debt, and pretty much every currency inflates.
This applies especially to the dollar, which requires massive borrowing because it's headed for a collapse soon. You need to flip your perspective on this one.☕
As far as we're concerned, we just need to reverse the trend to get debt under control. That requires sacrifice, discipline, saving, and investing. Most citizens are actually doing this, but unfortunately, the Government isn't. In that sense, GDP being tied up in debt and imports isn't as vital as increasing the share of domestic production in the GDP. If we do that, consumption becomes easy and prices stay lower.😉

Maria Thomas48, some of your observations are actually quite solid, but your prescription is flawed.
The one point where we align is that banks are essentially charging interest on money that doesn't exist. This might actually work if lending standards were rigorous—if loans weren't being handed out to anyone without a shred of criteria. Everything in life requires balance, and right now, there is none here.
Increasing the primary issuance won't solve a thing; it would just drive up prices and tank the exchange rate. If you wanted to stabilize the currency, you'd end up bleeding foreign reserves, which is the last thing we need.
Before anything else, we need to examine what methods are available to reduce illiquidity without resorting to primary issuance.
What the US needs in this situation is a sharp cut in public spending—specifically cutting everything that doesn't yield a fast or relatively quick return—so that real capital can be funneled into production. I wouldn't mind if GDP dropped another 10% if it meant imports dropped along with it. That is the core issue. Our import-to-export ratio is skewed, and that is where the fundamental deficit in the American economy lies. I’d even argue that American banks have been relatively controlled with their lending; we haven't seen the kind of excesses you see in places like... well, nowhere else really. Fundamentally, you cannot spend more than you earn, and that is how this has to be fixed. Tighten the belt to realistic levels instead of printing paper, because printing solves nothing.

casualtrucker7 said:Well, look, we've only got one domestic bank left—and you can see how in these foreign places where they don't have our "brilliant" managers running things, there isn't any stealing from the bosses. The Italians and Austrians seem pretty good at protecting what they actually earn over there.

It just goes to show how we handle our own business—if anything, these situations are better when our management isn't involved, since those kinds of robberies just don't happen there...

That holds some water, I suppose, but let me present the other side of the coin...
I don't think foreigners are any better. Just look at the American banks or Hypo Bank, which was taken over by the Austrian state—or rather, became a taxpayer liability for that country.
Ireland, Canada, Greece, Spain, and several others also have massive messes on their balance sheets, if anything, even worse than ours. Aside from Germany and maybe—just maybe—France, and to an extent the Czech Republic, there aren't many healthy economies left.
The current trend is bleak, especially since politicians are once again looking out for themselves.
As soon as there's a hint of exiting the crisis, they turn their backs on the rule of law.
But don't be fooled; things aren't fixed.
It isn't wise to fix one mistake only to stumble straight into another. Every state bank and public institution needs a strictly disciplined, clearly defined budget and policy. There is still a chance to navigate this crisis solidly without liquidating all our remaining assets. The fact that banks are well-capitalized is due to several factors—primarily some semblance of credit standards and Federal Reserve regulations, along with heavy imports that allow banks to earn more on negative interest rates than they would by risking capital on the local economy.
Gentlemen politicians, the holes in your treasury are only going to get wider. Stop lagging behind. Take the helm and manage the crisis decisively, instead of letting the crisis manage you.
Americans aren't bad at everything. There are plenty of people worse than us, and some much better.
There is a chance. We need to take it. The problem is, expecting that from this particular crew is a tall order.
One solution, if a true rule of law actually existed, would be to establish a strong national bank. That way, a portion of those negative interest spreads wouldn't bleed out to foreigners, and that money could be reinvested into the domestic economy where there's actually a shot at making a profit.

Chris Collins5 said:All that holds water, but how many years do you think it'll take before we actually reach a realistic standard of living at this level?

As long as it takes. Once you start living like that—when everyone finally pulls together—the gains multiply exponentially. Look at my grandparents. They lived in a tight-knit communal setup with their siblings. They harvested so much produce that within three years, they could afford an apartment in Washington, D.C. Yes, an apartment in D.C., earned by farmers from nothing. It wasn't just hard work; it was discipline. They saved. They bought salt and maybe a few essentials. No fancy treats, no gourmet coffee... everything was homegrown. Frugality isn't a sin; sometimes it's necessary. You save so that you can eventually spend. But then the era of excess arrived, and now we're stuck. That mindset dominates today, and it's killing us.

Chris Collins5 said:I read somewhere that 78,000 people were laid off this year—now the media is claiming another 50,000 are on the chopping block. If you believe the news... then those folks stop contributing to the treasury and start living off it for a while. Add wage cuts to the mix, and you've got even less money flowing back into the system. You can't fix a deficit just by slapping on crisis taxes—it's a chain reaction caused by falling consumer spending.
That drop in spending—along with plenty of other factors—eventually starves the budget all over again.
So, our options are to pile on more debt or sell everything off (at a massive discount)!
🤷

In a bubble economy fueled by massive import tariffs and sales tax, that isn't even the main issue. The priority should be slashing imports and cutting government spending. People living off the taxpayer without providing any actual value are just draining resources that should be fueling the private sector. When layoffs happen in the private sector, it's bad news because that's where the real wealth is generated. Sure, some state-run entities might turn a profit, but you can count them on one hand. Most of them—like Amtrak, major shipyards, or Exelon—are basically just bleeding money. To actually spark growth and job creation, you need to provide tax incentives, cut the bloat from government agencies, and encourage reinvestment.
We don't need more debt. We need to curb our appetites, live more modestly, and ensure the basics: food and medicine.
The unrealistic lifestyle we could never actually afford needs to be scaled back before we hit total bankruptcy. Taking on more debt isn't the answer; it's just prolonging the agony. We have to lower our standards of living. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this country is about to learn that lesson the hard way.

Gregory Williams7 said:It all depends. If we attempt to move past this crisis by simply hiking up tax revenue, then we are truly in trouble.

If the solution lies in cutting government spending, then there is a way out.

Exactly.
We need to squeeze The Administration to the absolute limit until they cut those perks. Spending hasn't really been touched, yet they've introduced new taxes. You can't expect some people to sacrifice while others feast on the fruits of everyone else's labor. My take? Purchasing power will drop by 50%, while the "elite" continue to flaunt themselves over the rest of us, making excuses like "it's an imported crisis, we didn't see it coming."
It’s just the left and right swapping seats... laughing all the way to the bank while they fleece the citizens.
Theoretically, if we implemented RADICAL AUSTERITY for two or three years, we'd be stabilized and looking at an economic boom. But for that to work, Joe Biden would need to live on a janitor's wage. Only then could we justify a modest 25% tax on essential costs. Leave the "extra" money in the private sector to stimulate reinvestment and job creation. Stop choking the economy with taxes that only serve to fund bureaucracy. Lower sales tax instead of raising it. Cut those redundant government jobs that exist solely for their own sake, because no real business can sustain that kind of burden.
Ensure people have access to basic food and medicine. We have grain reserves for a reason.
Economic recovery isn't about high consumption; it's about saving and production.
Proposals for devaluation and inflation are just new ways to swindle ordinary people.
Organized crime and extortion will inevitably rise.
We aren't just looking at a bubble bursting; we're looking at bankruptcy.☕

Samuel Baker3 said:Honestly, if you look closely, there were way more calls going against France than against us, and don't even get me started on that final play where Balić took down Abalo—that was a two-minute penalty handed out for nothing.

But really, the French shouldn't be complaining about the officiating because the referees didn't make nearly that much of a difference; they just played poorly and earned their loss.

The last time they managed to beat France in a semifinal, they ended up getting absolutely crushed in the finals when the Danes humiliated them, so let's just hope history doesn't repeat itself.

The officiating allowed for aggressive play. There were very few suspensions, which actually favored the French.
Regarding the situation you mentioned, Balić didn't charge head-on; he waited for the right moment to go down and throw the Frenchman off balance. Once the Frenchman was already falling, Balić pulled him down with his hands.
Considering the French weren't even penalized for hits to the head, I have no idea why that would be a 2-minute penalty.
Then there’s that play where Balić scored to make it 20:19. That definitely should have been a 2-minute penalty.
And those three suspicious breakthroughs? They were clearly compensation for Metličić's earlier drive that went uncalled.
The replay shows at least one, if not two, of those weren't even breakthroughs. In Balić's case, my take is he didn't hit him head-on—the Frenchman just sold the fall convincingly.
An athlete of that caliber doesn't just trip like that. No chance.
Meanwhile, Metličić practically stood still and was called for a breakthrough!?
All things considered, the Polish officials tried to call it fairly until the very end.
Take the play before Lacković's last goal: we had at least one or two goals disallowed that weren't traveling steps.
And then the French complain about the shot clock running long!?
That's how it goes. When you try to balance the scales for both sides, you just end up making mistakes.
Our win was entirely deserved, even if the officiating criteria leaned toward the French.

urbanotter4 said:...but we didn't back down. 😉

Congrats to the guys on a massive win. Now let's hope they crush the Germans tomorrow to take home the gold.

They took hits from all angles...
But they exhausted themselves trying to break us, while we're still standing tall and ready for more. 🙂

"They tried to break us, but they failed"

cosmichawk53 said:The play is mediocre at best, but the constant trash-talking directed at Lino Červar is what really stinks. People are already pushing this narrative about the genius Smajlagić versus the idiot Červar. Lino is a legend and frankly, it’s pathetic to see him insulted like this. I can't quite pin down what Metličić did to him, but let's be honest—the guy is a total moron. Think of all those useless penalties he's racked up or how many times he's completely botched an offensive play. Lacković is playing terribly and then acts like a victim when he gets called out, while Balić just sits there ignoring everything Červar says. You can't blame the coach for our lack of cohesion and the endless turnovers we're handing over.

And let's not forget, thanks a lot, Canadians!

Exactly. Lino is a legend. He played his part perfectly, but he tends to take things way too personally.
He could probably find a better outlet for all that intensity.
I still remember his brilliant commentary and leadership during the World Cup in Portugal.
That's the version of Lino we need right now.

wiredcyclist said:Look, you have to realize this is the peak for our national team. We just don't have what it takes to beat the French.

That claim is nonsense until the final buzzer sounds.
No surrendering ahead of time.

We’ve been pulling off wins in the final ten minutes lately...
Talk about clutch performance.
The biggest issue for our guys isn't strength; it's speed. We need pace before we can talk about power.
That late-game defense was solid, though.
Valčić could really pick up the tempo if he actually wanted to, rather than hesitating for five seconds just to get blocked.
If we had a fast-paced Valčić paired with Balić, we might actually have something here.
Hopefully, Metličić finds his rhythm soon too.

rapidbison42 said:Smajlagic went public with his comments regarding the disorganized preparations, and shortly after, he was ousted from the national team.
When will we finally see everyone's true roles within this team? One thing is crystal clear—since Smajlagic left, the medals have stopped coming, and the play is far from ideal.
I used to think he didn't hold such a significant role, but the results and the performance following his departure have completely disabused me of that notion. It's become obvious we have a clown on the bench.

Smajlagic is certainly more of an expert than Cervar.
It's never a good sign when personal success or political interests are conflated with the interests of the national team.
Cervar played a positive role back in Portugal. You have to give him credit for that, but those days are long gone.