Posts by mistystag0

mistystag0: I guess maybe this is worth looking into.

I guess there might be some room for interpretation here, maybe? It seems like a bit of a gloss over the main points, I suppose. mistystag0 says: One tries so hard to gain some actual knowledge and politely asks for help, yet you seem to be siding against them. I suppose there are no truly foolish questions, only foolish mistakes made in life. From the perspective of interpersonal relationships, maybe you should just judge for yourself whether your response was a mistake or not.

There are such things as foolish questions and foolish answers, along with all their consequences. From the perspective of interpersonal relationships, I suppose you should look at those last two sentences you directed at me. One was telling someone they don't have a clue about a subject and pointing them toward where to find information, while the other was simply an insult.

mistystag0

Maria Thomas48 said:I actually reached out to the Federal Reserve regarding the increase in the money supply and a few related issues. After waiting three weeks, here’s the gist of their reply: "Read the Federal Reserve Act and an introductory economics textbook."

I’d describe the response from the Fed representative as the ultimate non-answer. It basically means the person you're talking to either has no clue or is too afraid to speak up.

It’s honestly like asking a local cable technician how to fix a TV where the picture is squashed into a horizontal line, and they just tell you, "Go study electrical engineering, circuit design, and integrated circuits." The response doesn't actually help anyone; it's just a generic brush-off that applies to any question about fixing hardware.

So, I sent a letter over to the finance department at Harvard Business School. Now I'm genuinely curious to see what they come back with. I'll let everyone know once I hear something.

By the way, I’ve been digging through some econ books and skimmed through a free PDF on macroeconomics by an American author, Dietrich Krueger. The only thing I really gathered is that the sheer volume of money isn't the main point. More money leads to higher prices, sure, but there wasn't anything specifically addressing ways to increase the real money supply without relying on bank credit. Pretty interesting stuff.🙂

Regarding the relationship between money and social structures, the humanist Aleksandar Šarović wrote extensively about this a long time ago, and naturally, he didn't find a solution within the framework of capitalism. http://www.sarovic.org/novac.htm
If anyone is interested, give it a read.

He received the exact same response from both me and the Federal Reserve. I suppose he really needs to brush up on the fundamentals. Actually, I might have overestimated him; perhaps I should have pointed him toward some more introductory texts. For instance, he could start with Samuelson, P., A. and Nordhaus, D. Economics, 18th edition, or maybe move on to o. Blanchard, Macroeconomics, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 2002.

mistystag0 says: "Quote:"

I suppose there might be some merit to that idea. Maybe. mistystag0 says: The government is essentially an expense to society. It doesn't actually generate wealth; instead, it just redistributes existing resources and spends capital that belongs to someone else, largely because it holds a monopoly on both the national currency and legal force. I guess one has to wonder why anyone believes that government spending, at any level, would actually stimulate economic growth for the rest of us. Maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Based on what you wrote, I guess it might be a good idea for you to start with those same textbooks. I don't think anyone is going to sit here on a forum and explain the fundamentals of how economics works to both you and Nostradamus from scratch. To really grasp the basics, you probably need to go through the core subjects covered in the first two years of an American economics program. Economics is quite a bit deeper than just those few topics that pop up in the news or the nonsense peddled by people like Davor Šuker.

It seems there might be a misunderstanding or a missing piece of information here. I am not quite sure what you are referring to. Maybe you could provide more context? I guess I'll just wait to see what you meant. mistystag0 says:
Just one more thing, I was simply curious—what exactly does the username "mistystag0" refer to? A name truly says it all.

Do you happen to know even a tiny bit of Latin? That’s great. I assume you went to a good prep school. Back when I was in high school, we actually had a class called politics and economy in our junior or senior years. It probably wouldn't hurt to brush up on that a little bit.

All this is assuming you actually want to learn something, rather than just trying to fix a broken Mississippi.

Michael Sanchez7 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrophil

I guess I've already searched Google. 🙂

I suppose the question is, what does it mean when they fall below the reference range? Maybe it means there isn't any inflammation, or perhaps it means they aren't being produced enough to protect me from infection?

Along with those, my hemoglobin is at 115 (ref range 119-157), hematocrit is 0.342 (ref range 0.356-0.47), and GGT is 8 (ref range 9-35).

Could someone please explain what neutrophils actually do?
Mine are sitting at 29.4, while the standard range is listed between 44 and 72.

Thanks in advance,

K.

Nicole Collins13 said:When will they finally realize that’s just impossible? 😁

Oops, I just realized what I wrote there. The goal is to avoid deflation while keeping inflation at a low level, ideally around 3%. Based on current assumptions, that seems to be the healthiest rate for economic growth. If I recall correctly, the main objective of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is to maintain price stability.

mistystag0

Maria Thomas48 said:The economic side doesn't really interest me. Supply and demand laws dictate product prices. The core issue is the origin of money used for exchange. Let's say we successfully sell products and build in value—price minus costs. That newly created value can then be traded for someone else's money. We can stack that cash, invest it in various ventures, or even lend it out to keep it circulating. However, it’s becoming obvious that money is starting to run out. In a closed system, this is easy to see (think of an imaginary family), and the whole Earth is essentially a globally closed system.

Take that imaginary family I mentioned. If they want to trade their goods using money, they obviously need to have some. But at the start, they don't. They could try something else, like points, but they don't have those either. Someone has to create them. And once they are created, they have to be distributed; otherwise, everyone would have to give up products just to get that money, when in reality, that money is just a medium of exchange. That's the catch: whoever creates all the money holds all the exchangeable value. But they can't just distribute it easily, because you can't have both the sheep and the money at the same time.

The answer to where money comes from has to be timeless, since money has been used for centuries, dating back to the very first empires.

The initial source of money isn't the problem—since paper money is printed based on gold reserves—it's the increase in the money supply itself (especially considering population growth, which is up 20% in 22 years). Whoever injects money into circulation falls into the paradox of my imaginary family example.

I suppose this can be explained in ten sentences. Because the money supply has definitely increased, but how? Was it done through some kind of fraud?

Here is an example to clarify things. Where does milk come from? We could talk about grocery stores, trucks, the dairy industry, farms, and only at the very end arrive at the cows, which existed thousands of years ago long before humans domesticated them for our own use. So, the answer would be that milk comes from cows (goats, sheep, etc.).

It's the same with the money in circulation; we know it comes from a printing press (the farm), but I need someone smart to tell me which specific press that is (in Europe, the USA, China, ...). Because whoever owns that press holds all our newly created value in their hands, and they buy it up for the mere price of paper and printing costs. That is a trillion-dollar question. I'm looking for a sensible, common-sense answer. An expert who can't provide a simple, logical answer in their field might as well throw their degree away. For instance, an electrical engineer should probably hand in their diploma if they can't explain the origin of electrons or the AC current we all use in our homes today.

Answering this question will likely enlighten everyone's understanding of the financial system as we know it today. I haven't found the answer yet, but I suspect the real answer will be truly interesting for all of us.🙂

There isn't one single answer to that question. I guess the way money is issued hasn't always been the same.

Printing banknotes and minting coins is really just a tiny fraction of how the whole system works. Most money isn't even physical; it’s just digital entries sitting in bank accounts. For instance, I guess cash makes up about 25% of the money supply in the US, and globally, that percentage is probably even lower.

mistystag0

Maria Thomas48 said:The economic side doesn't really interest me. Supply and demand laws dictate product prices. The core issue is the origin of money used for exchange. Let's say we successfully sell products and build in value—price minus costs. That newly created value can then be traded for someone else's money. We can stack that cash, invest it in various ventures, or even lend it out to keep it circulating. However, it’s becoming obvious that money is starting to run out. In a closed system, this is easy to see (think of an imaginary family), and the whole Earth is essentially a globally closed system.

Take that imaginary family I mentioned. If they want to trade their goods using money, they obviously need to have some. But at the start, they don't. They could try something else, like points, but they don't have those either. Someone has to create them. And once they are created, they have to be distributed; otherwise, everyone would have to give up products just to get that money, when in reality, that money is just a medium of exchange. That's the catch: whoever creates all the money holds all the exchangeable value. But they can't just distribute it easily, because you can't have both the sheep and the money at the same time.

The answer to where money comes from has to be timeless, since money has been used for centuries, dating back to the very first empires.

The initial source of money isn't the problem—since paper money is printed based on gold reserves—it's the increase in the money supply itself (especially considering population growth, which is up 20% in 22 years). Whoever injects money into circulation falls into the paradox of my imaginary family example.

I suppose this can be explained in ten sentences. Because the money supply has definitely increased, but how? Was it done through some kind of fraud?

Here is an example to clarify things. Where does milk come from? We could talk about grocery stores, trucks, the dairy industry, farms, and only at the very end arrive at the cows, which existed thousands of years ago long before humans domesticated them for our own use. So, the answer would be that milk comes from cows (goats, sheep, etc.).

It's the same with the money in circulation; we know it comes from a printing press (the farm), but I need someone smart to tell me which specific press that is (in Europe, the USA, China, ...). Because whoever owns that press holds all our newly created value in their hands, and they buy it up for the mere price of paper and printing costs. That is a trillion-dollar question. I'm looking for a sensible, common-sense answer. An expert who can't provide a simple, logical answer in their field might as well throw their degree away. For instance, an electrical engineer should probably hand in their diploma if they can't explain the origin of electrons or the AC current we all use in our homes today.

Answering this question will likely enlighten everyone's understanding of the financial system as we know it today. I haven't found the answer yet, but I suspect the real answer will be truly interesting for all of us.🙂

Like I mentioned before, you might want to look up how central banks operate, specifically regarding primary and secondary money issuance. It's the central banks that actually issue the currency. They try to be very careful about determining exactly how much is released into the system, just so they can avoid triggering inflation or deflation. I guess it's all about finding that balance.

How could you say I haven't helped? I really did point you toward the right resources to help you understand what you're looking for.

To put it simply, I suggest reading this:
Perišin I, Šokman A, Lovrinović I: “Monetary Policy,” Wharton School, September 2001. (450 pages)

I suppose you're hoping someone can just explain the entire monetary side of economics in a couple of sentences. That probably isn't going to happen.

I’ll try to be gentle here. From my perspective, since you seem to have a somewhat naive view of finance, you are making some pretty significant errors.😢

To start with, maybe you could look up some basics on monetary policy: the Bretton Woods agreement and the gold standard, how a central bank maintains its independence, primary versus secondary money issuance, supply and demand, and monetary aggregates.

I guess once you've looked all of that over, you might realize just how much there is left to learn.

LP👋

Jacob Long said:😲 I didn't realize that—any idea where I can actually read the full text of that law?

All laws, amendments, regulations, and official government notices are typically published in the Federal Register.

Here is the specific section regarding the Bank Secrecy Act:

This law was basically lifted straight from European Union regulations, so there isn't much way around it. If you actually feel like reading through it, the legislation includes specific indicators for determining risk levels. I guess it mentions that if a potential client refuses to provide their details, you have to report them to the Treasury Department's anti-money laundering division, which automatically flags them at the highest possible risk level.

The regulatory office seems just as clueless and incompetent as everyone else in the country, but they can still make your life pretty difficult regardless.

If you're dealing with a major international corporation, they surely have their Articles of Incorporation ready. Just hand those over to the bank and everything should be fine.

Do you find sleeping without a pillow works for you? Does it leave you with any neck or back pain in the morning?
Maybe you have some weaker muscle groups in those areas that require extra support?

If none of that applies, just let me know...

Personally, I sleep on my side with a pillow, on my stomach without one, and I don't sleep on my back. My muscles seem to be fine.🤷