Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

fadedwolf20 I didn't say that.
What is the point of economics, anyway? Deciding how to divvy up limited resources—it’s always a mess. Whether it’s corporate budget cuts or government spending, you’re essentially playing a zero-sum game where someone always loses. It’s less about "fairness" and more about who has the most leverage at the table. Land, housing, homes, labor, and everything people actually produce—that’s what matters. Yet, the economy has built this massive empire that exists solely to serve itself. Interest rates, inflation, deflation, derivatives, futures, credit, stocks, exchanges—it’s a mountain of jargon designed to make things look complicated. But when you strip away the noise, the reality is incredibly simple:

Economics isn't some tool designed for the redistribution of resources. It doesn't "serve" anything—and it certainly isn't some engine used to "build empires."
Resources might be finite, but they’re getting cheaper relative to labor costs—meaning our time is actually becoming more valuable. An hour of work today buys you way more food, better connectivity, and more travel than an hour did a century ago. It’s a simple shift in leverage.
Take copper, for example. Even though we supposedly blew past "peak copper" ages ago—much like that whole "peak oil" hysteria—the price hasn't exactly gone vertical. It’s a simple reality: price isn't just about supply; it's driven by demand. In the past, copper was the go-to, but now we're seeing materials being swapped out for alternatives. So, even as supply tightens, demand is simultaneously cratering. We’ll likely see the same pattern with oil—once supply eventually drops, demand will follow suit—but that's a conversation for another day.

That growth isn't going anywhere if we stick to the same principles that landed us in this mess—if you can even call them principles. It’s debatable which ones exactly, but we’re definitely repeating ourselves.

The entire economic engine of Western civilization is built on one shaky assumption: constant growth. Growth, growth, and more growth. But we’re living on a finite planet with finite resources—it’s basic math. That kind of perpetual expansion isn't sustainable, and frankly, it can't be. If you ask me, the 2008 crash wasn't just some random glitch; it was the inevitable result of hitting the actual physical limits of our environment. The whole global economy is essentially a massive Ponzi scheme that requires a continuous upward trajectory of goods, services, and even population numbers just to stay afloat. We hit peak oil around 2005, which sent prices skyrocketing to $147 a barrel by 2008. That spike triggered the domino effect—that absolute mess we’ve been struggling to wade through ever since.

The 2008 crash wasn't some unique anomaly—it was just the latest chapter in a long history of financial collapses. It had nothing to do with resource scarcity. If you want to actually understand what's happening—and more importantly, how to predict the next hit—the best theory currently available is... ABCT.

fadedwolf20 said:So, what's the point of economics anyway? It's basically just setting the rules for how we divvy up LIMITED resources. Land, apartments, houses, labor, stuff people make... you name it. But honestly? Economics has built this massive empire that mostly just serves itself. Interest rates, inflation, deflation, derivatives, futures, loans, stocks, the big exchanges—it's all such a headache of terms, but the core concept is actually super simple:

The entire engine of Western civilization is fueled by constant growth. Growth, growth, and more freaking growth! But here's the kicker—we live on one finite planet with limited resources, so obviously, this endless expansion can't, and won't, last forever. I'd argue the 2008 crash happened because we finally slammed right into the physical limits of our environment. This whole economic setup is basically a giant Ponzi scheme that expects goods, services, and even the human population to keep climbing forever just to stay afloat. Then, back in 2005, we hit peak-oil, which sent oil prices skyrocketing to $147 a barrel by 2008, triggering this massive avalanche of crap that we're still drowning in today.

To me, it makes perfect sense—the root cause is that money is issued through credit along with interest, and to pay off that interest, you *have* to create new value. But right now, the whole system is shaking because we can't create that new value anymore—we've hit an energy ceiling and we're teetering on the edge of an energy abyss. Naturally, that means the credits and the interest can't be paid back... It's all over, folks.

The saddest part? People aren't even reading the market signals. Since oil is the literal FOUNDATION of our modern world, when oil gets expensive, everything else goes up too—so most people miss the real culprit behind the price hikes. They're all talking about some subprime mortgage crisis in the US and how the bankers decided to 🙏play too hard. But honestly? They've been playing this game since the end of WWII; the only difference is that back then, they actually had the resources to back up their moves, and now they don't...

Man, we had it way too good, which is why we ended up in this Idiocracy situation. We didn't invest enough in R&D and we were just too lazy, even though these problems were predicted decades ago by guys like Dr. Hubbert.

I suppose it really depends on your perspective—people tend to twist facts to fit whatever narrative they prefer—but if you actually look at the numbers, oil has never truly been "cheap." Furthermore, there is the issue of purchasing power; that single dollar today doesn't carry nearly the weight it did in 1970 or even 2000.
In my view, you have to look at some kind of meaningful average rather than just pinning two isolated values against each other and pretending you've reached a logical conclusion.

Nicole Gomez38 said:Greetings, everyone. I am the "so-called" Donald Trump you've been discussing here. The reason currency clauses exist is quite simple: the Federal Reserve operates like one massive exchange house. Unless that fundamental structure changes, those clauses aren't going anywhere. You need to realize you are fighting a predatory system where both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are deeply entwined with the financial elite. Protests and bank blockades won't save you—the only way out is to challenge the system politically and vote this filth out of office.

In this video, I break down the issues within our monetary system; if you want to understand how it actually works, you really should give this a watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

The thing is, you can't just tear that system down because America is hell-bent on being part of that global structure. And honestly? The way it’s built, money doesn't just vanish into thin air like water evaporating... it just gets funneled from pocket A straight into pocket B...

placidranger said:

fadedwolf20 I didn't say that.
What is the point of economics, anyway? Deciding how to divvy up limited resources—it’s always a mess. Whether it’s corporate budget cuts or government spending, you’re essentially playing a zero-sum game where someone always loses. It’s less about "fairness" and more about who has the most leverage at the table. Land, housing, homes, labor, and everything people actually produce—that’s what matters. Yet, the economy has built this massive empire that exists solely to serve itself. Interest rates, inflation, deflation, derivatives, futures, credit, stocks, exchanges—it’s a mountain of jargon designed to make things look complicated. But when you strip away the noise, the reality is incredibly simple:

Economics isn't some tool designed for the redistribution of resources. It doesn't "serve" anything—and it certainly isn't some engine used to "build empires."
Resources might be finite, but they’re getting cheaper relative to labor costs—meaning our time is actually becoming more valuable. An hour of work today buys you way more food, better connectivity, and more travel than an hour did a century ago. It’s a simple shift in leverage.
Take copper, for example. Even though we supposedly blew past "peak copper" ages ago—much like that whole "peak oil" hysteria—the price hasn't exactly gone vertical. It’s a simple reality: price isn't just about supply; it's driven by demand. In the past, copper was the go-to, but now we're seeing materials being swapped out for alternatives. So, even as supply tightens, demand is simultaneously cratering. We’ll likely see the same pattern with oil—once supply eventually drops, demand will follow suit—but that's a conversation for another day.

That growth isn't going anywhere if we stick to the same principles that landed us in this mess—if you can even call them principles. It’s debatable which ones exactly, but we’re definitely repeating ourselves.

The entire economic engine of Western civilization is built on one shaky assumption: constant growth. Growth, growth, and more growth. But we’re living on a finite planet with finite resources—it’s basic math. That kind of perpetual expansion isn't sustainable, and frankly, it can't be. If you ask me, the 2008 crash wasn't just some random glitch; it was the inevitable result of hitting the actual physical limits of our environment. The whole global economy is essentially a massive Ponzi scheme that requires a continuous upward trajectory of goods, services, and even population numbers just to stay afloat. We hit peak oil around 2005, which sent prices skyrocketing to $147 a barrel by 2008. That spike triggered the domino effect—that absolute mess we’ve been struggling to wade through ever since.

The 2008 crash wasn't some unique anomaly—it was just the latest chapter in a long history of financial collapses. It had nothing to do with resource scarcity. If you want to actually understand what's happening—and more importantly, how to predict the next hit—the best theory currently available is... ABCT.

So, why does everything get cheaper compared to the cost of labor? Think about it—a person can produce the same amount of basic work in one hour today as they could 2,000 years ago. But because of that work, they get way more finished products because our society, thanks to fossil fuels, generates massively more stuff than we ever could without them. Human labor is such a tiny slice of the total work society pulls off now, and the smaller that slice gets, the richer the society becomes because machines (powered by energy, obviously) are doing the heavy lifting.

It's pretty obvious you aren't quite grasping the global energy situation here. Seriously, to get the same amount of energy we pull from oil in just one day, you'd need something like 66,000 nuclear reactors running 24/7 all over the world! Demand for oil climbs about 1.5-2% every single year, even though pulling it out of the ground is basically stalling out. The reason is simple: oil is the backbone of the modern economy, so nobody wants to let go, and everyone is willing to pay whatever it takes.

If we’re talking economic terms—say an hour of manual labor costs $10—how high could the price of a barrel of oil go before oil stops being more efficient than human labor? We're talking up to $250,000! Because that one barrel holds so much energy that a person would have to work 25,000 hours just to generate it manually... okay, you gotta factor in the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, so maybe it drops to something like 15,000 hours of effective work, but you get the point. It's all about the scale of magnitude. See why an hour of human labor "worth" more than it used to? It's because oil provides that massive surplus.

Maria Thomas48 said:I didn't need to look at Sweden or Denmark to realize one inescapable thing: we spend every single day working and building things, and yet the result is just an ever-growing mountain of debt.

The whole thing is intentional, not some accident. And the people who created this mess aren't going to be the ones to fix it. We’re the only ones who can. A recent CNN poll really shows how uninformed most people actually are. It was about supporting the new administration's austerity measures: http://edition.cnn.com/politics/us-economy-news...example. All those folks cheering for budget cuts and giving up their own rights under this new government wouldn't feel that way if they understood that austerity isn't the answer. It just shows how much brainwashing has happened. You see the same pattern in other countries where the situation is even worse. There's even an article by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman arguing that austerity is a mistake: http://nytimes.com/opinion/paul-krugman-crisis-austerity

It’s obvious the government needs to spend money rationally—getting the most bang for their buck—but the issue isn't about saving money. It's about how that money is being spent. If you just keep spending more to create even more debt, then obviously, that debt is just going to pile up.

I totally see where you're coming from there! But honestly, I don't think your fix is much better, either. If you hand over total control of primary currency issuance to the states, you're basically begging for hyperinflation to kick in...

Regarding the gold standard—I was reading through this thread earlier and it seems like that would basically force everyone into "saver mode" because the value of the dollar would just climb, which pretty much kills any incentive for people to actually invest. So, we really need to find some kind of middle ground here. What if we let credit expansion happen for a bit, and then once the debt gets too crazy, we pivot back to a gold standard to steady the economy? Then maybe switch back again once things settle down? Just a constant loop to keep us balanced!

fadedwolf20 said:So, why does everything get cheaper compared to the cost of labor? Think about it—a person can produce the same amount of basic work in one hour today as they could 2,000 years ago. But because of that work, they get way more finished products because our society, thanks to fossil fuels, generates massively more stuff than we ever could without them. Human labor is such a tiny slice of the total work society pulls off now, and the smaller that slice gets, the richer the society becomes because machines (powered by energy, obviously) are doing the heavy lifting.

It's pretty obvious you aren't quite grasping the global energy situation here. Seriously, to get the same amount of energy we pull from oil in just one day, you'd need something like 66,000 nuclear reactors running 24/7 all over the world! Demand for oil climbs about 1.5-2% every single year, even though pulling it out of the ground is basically stalling out. The reason is simple: oil is the backbone of the modern economy, so nobody wants to let go, and everyone is willing to pay whatever it takes.

If we’re talking economic terms—say an hour of manual labor costs $10—how high could the price of a barrel of oil go before oil stops being more efficient than human labor? We're talking up to $250,000! Because that one barrel holds so much energy that a person would have to work 25,000 hours just to generate it manually... okay, you gotta factor in the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, so maybe it drops to something like 15,000 hours of effective work, but you get the point. It's all about the scale of magnitude. See why an hour of human labor "worth" more than it used to? It's because oil provides that massive surplus.

It’s basic division of labor and increasing specialization. You can prove it with math—if everyone just goes solo, they end up with much less than if they specialize, handle one specific task, and then trade. Of course, you have machinery involved too—oil, gas, solar power, computers, smartphones, medical breakthroughs... anything that boosts productivity makes goods cheaper relative to the cost of work.

The reality is that productivity was climbing long before we tapped into oil, and it'll keep climbing after peak oil, just like it did back then. People are innovators.
But anyway, that’s a whole different conversation.

Increasing savings is essentially the same thing as boosting investment—they’re two sides of the same coin. You can't argue that ramping up savings somehow stifles investment; if anything, it’s the exact opposite. When people save more, there’s more capital available to fuel investment. Furthermore, in a deflationary environment, nominal interest rates tend to drop, and you see companies moving away from heavy debt—instead, they lean much more heavily on retained earnings to fund their growth (especially since falling prices naturally drag down operating costs as well).

Andrew Booth29 said:Increasing savings is essentially the same thing as boosting investment—they’re two sides of the same coin. You can't argue that ramping up savings somehow stifles investment; if anything, it’s the exact opposite. When people save more, there’s more capital available to fuel investment. Furthermore, in a deflationary environment, nominal interest rates tend to drop, and you see companies moving away from heavy debt—instead, they lean much more heavily on retained earnings to fund their growth (especially since falling prices naturally drag down operating costs as well).

So, what I'm hearing is... you think something like the gold standard is the magic fix?

If you look back at almost any major crisis in history—from the fall of the Roman Empire right up to our modern era—you’ll notice a pattern: they are almost always preceded by massive monetary expansion. Without stable monetary aggregates, you simply don't get sustainable growth. In a functional system, money is earned the honest way—through hard work, actual sweat, and a constant drive to improve production. That is how a system should reward the productive members of society. These endless printing tactics? They have always, without fail, led the world straight into a crisis.

placidranger said:It’s basic division of labor and increasing specialization. You can prove it with math—if everyone just goes solo, they end up with much less than if they specialize, handle one specific task, and then trade. Of course, you have machinery involved too—oil, gas, solar power, computers, smartphones, medical breakthroughs... anything that boosts productivity makes goods cheaper relative to the cost of work.

The reality is that productivity was climbing long before we tapped into oil, and it'll keep climbing after peak oil, just like it did back then. People are innovators.
But anyway, that’s a whole different conversation.

The actual massive question is how we transition our society from what we have now—where we're burning through insane amounts of energy—to a future where we won't have that kind of access anymore... You know? Like, if we want to maintain this current energy standard, the US would need something like ~50GWe, which is basically 50 of those top-tier modern nuclear reactors (especially if you're planning on electrifying every single vehicle on the road). Right now, there are only about four of those reactors being built, and all four are over in China, and they take nearly a decade to finish. If we face an oil drop of 4-8% every year, dragging down GDP, employment, and sending inflation through the roof, who on earth is going to foot the bill for those nuclear plants?

Honestly, the way we're wasting energy right now isn't even sustainable in the short term, yet the economy just keeps spinning in circles, trying to find someone to blame internally instead of just pointing at the actual problem.

Andrew Booth29 said:If you look back at almost any major crisis in history—from the fall of the Roman Empire right up to our modern era—you’ll notice a pattern: they are almost always preceded by massive monetary expansion. Without stable monetary aggregates, you simply don't get sustainable growth. In a functional system, money is earned the honest way—through hard work, actual sweat, and a constant drive to improve production. That is how a system should reward the productive members of society. These endless printing tactics? They have always, without fail, led the world straight into a crisis.

My question wasn't even rhetorical! Look, I'm totally a layman when it comes to economics, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around how and why everything works the way it does. Wouldn't deflation actually reward people for saving money instead of just rewarding investors? Because if we're talking deflation, you could basically just sit on your cash like a hen on an egg and wait... But today, it's the exact opposite—inflation eats away at your value, and hyperinflation just devours your savings whole.

Investing requires savings—whether those are your own hard-earned dollars or someone else’s. You can't skip the saving phase if you want to play the game; you have to build capital before you can deploy it. And let's be honest, if you aren't actively investing that capital, you aren't seeing any real returns. It's simple math: when the general public starts ramping up their savings, interest rates inevitably drop—which, in turn, turns previously stagnant investments into profitable ventures.
Just sitting on a pile of cash isn't a strategy; it's just stagnation. To actually see a return, you have to put that money into a bank, where the bank then lends it out to others. Even if you decide to stash your cash under a mattress—which, frankly, is just another way of participating—you are essentially increasing the real purchasing power of everyone else holding money. Eventually, falling prices trigger a surge in investment.

Andrew Booth29 said:If you look back at almost any major crisis in history—from the fall of the Roman Empire right up to our modern era—you’ll notice a pattern: they are almost always preceded by massive monetary expansion. Without stable monetary aggregates, you simply don't get sustainable growth. In a functional system, money is earned the honest way—through hard work, actual sweat, and a constant drive to improve production. That is how a system should reward the productive members of society. These endless printing tactics? They have always, without fail, led the world straight into a crisis.

It’s funny how "crises" always seem to leave certain people even richer than they were before.
And honestly, looking at how the Roman Empire started falling apart because of their own economic choices compared to the crashes we've seen in America over the last century... man, you start to think there's always someone pulling the strings behind the scenes 😁

Like what was said above, America isn't going to just wiggle its way out of this current financial mess. We're all too deeply entrenched in this system, and honestly, the rest of the world is too. The only way things actually change is if the entire American public wakes up and shifts their mindset completely.

Jesse Sullivan2 said:It’s funny how "crises" always seem to leave certain people even richer than they were before.
And honestly, looking at how the Roman Empire started falling apart because of their own economic choices compared to the crashes we've seen in America over the last century... man, you start to think there's always someone pulling the strings behind the scenes 😁

Like what was said above, America isn't going to just wiggle its way out of this current financial mess. We're all too deeply entrenched in this system, and honestly, the rest of the world is too. The only way things actually change is if the entire American public wakes up and shifts their mindset completely.

Just because someone made a killing during a crisis doesn't mean they engineered it. You're looking at different factions with conflicting interests who could barely agree on a lunch menu, let alone coordinate a global meltdown. Most of them just happened to be standing in the right place at the right time.

Jesse Sullivan2 said:It’s funny how "crises" always seem to leave certain people even richer than they were before.
And honestly, looking at how the Roman Empire started falling apart because of their own economic choices compared to the crashes we've seen in America over the last century... man, you start to think there's always someone pulling the strings behind the scenes 😁

Like what was said above, America isn't going to just wiggle its way out of this current financial mess. We're all too deeply entrenched in this system, and honestly, the rest of the world is too. The only way things actually change is if the entire American public wakes up and shifts their mindset completely.

A staggering amount of wealth was wiped out during this crisis, yet even the ultra-wealthy aren't significantly poorer than they were before everything went south. It’s an undeniable truth that someone profits from every crisis, just as they do during any period of economic expansion. However, one should observe that it was precisely the expansive monetary policy that preserved the wealth of the top tier—whose fortunes had nearly been cut in half at the onset of the crash. If they hadn't resorted to printing money, the wealth of those elites would be substantially lower today, and the wealth gap would have narrowed.

When you crunch all the numbers and look at the big picture, wealth was lost in this crisis.

fadedwolf20 said:I totally see where you're coming from there! But honestly, I don't think your fix is much better, either. If you hand over total control of primary currency issuance to the states, you're basically begging for hyperinflation to kick in...

Regarding the gold standard—I was reading through this thread earlier and it seems like that would basically force everyone into "saver mode" because the value of the dollar would just climb, which pretty much kills any incentive for people to actually invest. So, we really need to find some kind of middle ground here. What if we let credit expansion happen for a bit, and then once the debt gets too crazy, we pivot back to a gold standard to steady the economy? Then maybe switch back again once things settle down? Just a constant loop to keep us balanced!

I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about this, but hyperinflation—the kind that hits when a government starts printing money like there's no tomorrow—is tied directly to the simultaneous expansion of credit. Basically, if you could actually decouple the creation of money from the lending process, we wouldn't be seeing hyperinflationary spikes. For it to truly spiral, the state would have to go completely overboard with the actual printing. That’s why the whole process needs to be handled by science, not just politicians making calls based on whatever is convenient for them.

I was reading through this thread about the gold standard, and I’ve been thinking. It seems like some people here would favor it just because it rewards savers—since money actually gains value over time—but that also ends up killing any incentive for investors to take risks. You kind of need to find a middle ground somewhere. Maybe we could allow for credit expansion for a while, and then once the debt starts piling up too high, trigger a return to the gold standard to stabilize things? Just loop it like that. A cycle to keep the economy steady.

Haha, that’s exactly how they’d manage to get rid of all the gold. Honestly, that’s pretty much why the gold standard collapsed in the first place.

Jesse Sullivan2 said:It’s funny how "crises" always seem to leave certain people even richer than they were before.
And honestly, looking at how the Roman Empire started falling apart because of their own economic choices compared to the crashes we've seen in America over the last century... man, you start to think there's always someone pulling the strings behind the scenes 😁

Like what was said above, America isn't going to just wiggle its way out of this current financial mess. We're all too deeply entrenched in this system, and honestly, the rest of the world is too. The only way things actually change is if the entire American public wakes up and shifts their mindset completely.

America can definitely break free from this crisis. But it requires actual knowledge, not just some rigid, dogmatic economic theory.

The situation in the European Union might look patched up right now, but nothing has actually changed. They didn't prevent the crisis; they just dragged out the agony. The goal is pretty obvious: keep this system running as long as possible so they can squeeze out as much profit as they can. Printing money as debt is basically just a scam and a robbery.

The shift in mindset needs to focus on this: We don't need more credit; we need more actual, real money to pay back the credit we already have! Don't listen to Dalicia or North calling for lower interest rates. Just use common sense. Common sense says it's impossible to pay back more than the cash you actually possess. And it's been known for a long time now that the debts are way higher than the money available.

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about this, but hyperinflation—the kind that hits when a government starts printing money like there's no tomorrow—is tied directly to the simultaneous expansion of credit. Basically, if you could actually decouple the creation of money from the lending process, we wouldn't be seeing hyperinflationary spikes. For it to truly spiral, the state would have to go completely overboard with the actual printing. That’s why the whole process needs to be handled by science, not just politicians making calls based on whatever is convenient for them.

I was reading through this thread about the gold standard, and I’ve been thinking. It seems like some people here would favor it just because it rewards savers—since money actually gains value over time—but that also ends up killing any incentive for investors to take risks. You kind of need to find a middle ground somewhere. Maybe we could allow for credit expansion for a while, and then once the debt starts piling up too high, trigger a return to the gold standard to stabilize things? Just loop it like that. A cycle to keep the economy steady.

Haha, that’s exactly how they’d manage to get rid of all the gold. Honestly, that’s pretty much why the gold standard collapsed in the first place.

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. 🧐

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. 🧐

I would really appreciate it if you guys stopped spreading misinformation. I know you all know what the truth actually is.

This whole mess... it’s not just an American thing, it’s the global economy acting up, and honestly? Some people are loving it. There are players out there so massive they basically dictate terms to entire governments. And here we are in the States, just following whatever trends decide to roll our way. The next big move on the agenda is joining the European Union—which, if you ask me, feels like just another scheme designed to line the pockets of the elite while folks like me get left behind.