Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

Jesse Sullivan2 said: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.

Of course they are. Just look at the so-called "solution" the European Union pushed for Greece. It was never about fixing anything; it was just about keeping the system on life support for as long as possible. The debt in Greece is just going to keep climbing regardless. Sure, interest rates might drop slightly, but that won't matter much in the long run because the principal amount keeps ballooning anyway.

Andrew Booth29 said:Actually, no. Hyperinflation hits when the government starts printing non-credit money—basically just monetizing its own debt to plug a massive deficit.
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, sure, but hyperinflation? That’s a purely political one. 🧐

It’s like if Peter shows up and you give him your vote, then Edward shows up and you give him yours just so someone else doesn't get it, then this guy shows up, then that guy, and eventually everyone is telling everyone else to cut back first... It's an inevitable spiral. A couple of fruit flies can ruin an entire liter of wine, but they don't stand a chance when there's a whole vat of it...
That is why we need to cut unnecessary spending, learn to live more modestly, and accept that "less is more." For a regular person, that actually matters, and it makes money hold some value. On the other hand, I have zero doubt we are heading toward squandering even the few remaining resources just so the bureaucracy can keep running for another year or two while taking on even more debt. People's expectations are completely unrealistic; life used to be far simpler, yet people managed.
Now, we need to scale back, reinvest what we've gained into productive capacities, wait out the inflation in the Eurozone, and try to adapt. Trying to finance a bloated $15 billion deficit by printing more dollars would be the path to South Africa. We are tied to the dollar, so that isn't an option here; measures must be coordinated because without stabilizing the currency, everything goes to hell. Who would trust the strength of our currency based on what kind of production we actually have?
The move is to take on debt while the dollar hasn't inflated too much—or better yet, borrow in dollars—cut the deficit so we can afford to buy gold and, most importantly, protect our resources. Resources are real wealth; paper is not. Once the heavy hitters start circling, it will be hard for outsiders to strip us bare. Internal balance is everything...

Maria Thomas48 said:I would really appreciate it if you guys stopped spreading misinformation. I know you all know what the truth actually is.

Peter Thiel has written an excellent book on this subject—it is essentially what he has dedicated his entire life to studying. 😉

Andrew Booth29 said:Peter Thiel has written an excellent book on this subject—it is essentially what he has dedicated his entire life to studying. 😉

Bringing up professors is an illusion. Take Jerome Powell for example: America could have the fastest growing economy without any blood, sweat, or tears where he uses these specific words:

"We can produce money that covers newly created value. The Federal Reserve is making a mistake because they don't base the money supply on American production, but rather on the dollar."

So, he’s essentially calling for classic inflation. It just goes to show that being a professor, or even a Nobel laureate, doesn't mean you're right. It just means you were good at convincing other people of a theory that might eventually fall apart. Just like Kenezianism. A decent theory that didn't last. And the guy spent his entire life on it. Maybe he was paid to cook up a flawed theory? I've concluded there's no way he could build an entire theory without realizing it couldn't survive long-term in a system based solely on credit money. The theory had a built-in error from the start!

Therefore, quoting any economist who hasn't demonstrated a working method—proven by practice in an actual country—is just selling snake oil, and people should be called out for it. You're just confusing people, and honestly, it feels like intentional obstruction to keep them away from real solutions.

I've already told you all to stop trolling the topic with your manipulations. You can't even solve a basic economic math problem:

In a country with a million able-bodied people that maintains a balanced trade with foreign nations, make it so that everyone—working 16 hours a day at jobs you assign them—can save exactly one dollar per day from their labor. And keep it going indefinitely. Now tell me how you'll pull that off. If you don't have the answer, you're better off staying quiet.

As you can see, a saving of $122 per year is tiny, yet unsustainable for everyone. Not to mention how much debt we already have per capita, and we still don't know how to achieve a saving of $122 per year?

Comparing a legitimate scientific paper—one actually grounded in historical facts and hard data—to nothing more than mindless blathering that offers zero substance beyond empty rhetoric is frankly ridiculous. It isn’t even worth a response. Jerome Powell seems to be nursing political ambitions now, peddling all those "milk and honey" promises to anyone listening. It’s just cheap, bottom-tier populism.

Andrew Booth29 said:Comparing a legitimate scientific paper—one actually grounded in historical facts and hard data—to nothing more than mindless blathering that offers zero substance beyond empty rhetoric is frankly ridiculous. It isn’t even worth a response. Jerome Powell seems to be nursing political ambitions now, peddling all those "milk and honey" promises to anyone listening. It’s just cheap, bottom-tier populism.

So, I guess Kenezijanizam is just blathering too? Who knew. That's definitely not how they teach it in college. If we didn't already know, Jurčić is a university professor.

Anyway, what about the assignment. Has anyone from your list actually solved it?

Just take a quick look at the history of hyperinflation and everything becomes crystal clear. There isn’t much mystery left once you peel back the layers. Keynesianism has failed in practice more times than I can count—so why should this time be any different? But people have an insatiable appetite for a free lunch, and there’s always some politician or economist ready to serve it up. It’s like those "miracle cures" for arthritis—everyone knows they’re snake oil, yet people keep lining up to buy them anyway.
As for those equations of yours, I really have no interest in wasting my time debating meaningless, misinterpreted accounting identities. 😉

Andrew Booth29 said:Just take a quick look at the history of hyperinflation and everything becomes crystal clear. There isn’t much mystery left once you peel back the layers. Keynesianism has failed in practice more times than I can count—so why should this time be any different? But people have an insatiable appetite for a free lunch, and there’s always some politician or economist ready to serve it up. It’s like those "miracle cures" for arthritis—everyone knows they’re snake oil, yet people keep lining up to buy them anyway.
As for those equations of yours, I really have no interest in wasting my time debating meaningless, misinterpreted accounting identities. 😉

Honestly, I couldn't care less about what professors or Nobel Prize winners have to say if they can't actually provide a solution that works in the real world.

As for those equations of yours, I really don't have any interest in messing around with senseless accounting identities that people just end up misinterpreting anyway. 😉

I wasn't actually asking you about my evidence. I was just making a polite request for you to finally decide once and for all whether you actually understand economics, or if you’re just reciting dogmas that nobody is allowed to question.

This is a concrete issue, and it has nothing to do with my formulas. It’s about the lives of millions of people. How are you actually going to create conditions where someone working sixteen hours a day can save a single dollar? If that's too hard, then just show me how they can save one cent. Just prove you know how to solve the actual problem instead of just pouring dogma out of various textbooks.

Here’s another simple task:

Imagine a country with a million people ready to work. Now, picture a nation that maintains a perfectly balanced trade deficit. Within that setup, you could force every single one of those people to grind away for sixteen hours a day in whatever jobs you assign them, and yet, they would only ever be able to save a single dollar from their earnings each day. And you could keep that cycle going forever.

What’s actually wrong with this prompt? It asks if it's wrong to suggest that every hardworking person should be able to set aside a tiny bit of savings from their labor. Is that really such a problematic thing to say?
Is this really an unsolvable puzzle for economists? It’s such a minor thing, yet somehow it stays a massive headache. And then you have people being handed the Nobel Prize in Economics every single year. It’s funny how nobody seems to actually fix it. What a coincidence.

Look, if the headcount isn't working for you? Just change it. If the hours don't fit the schedule? Change them. If the daily savings aren't hitting the mark—just make sure they stay above zero—then change that too. But seriously, just say it once. I don't know how to fix this. Just stop talking about things you don't understand, can't grasp, or simply refuse to wrap your head around.

You can't honestly tell me that the profitability of what these people are doing is questionable and then claim you don't have a solution, if you actually understand economics. It’s pretty simple. The whole point of the task is that they just execute while you dictate exactly what needs to be done. There is no room to talk about incompetence or the laws of the market here. You define everything. Once you set those parameters, success becomes inevitable. Or maybe it doesn't, if you don't actually know how to run the show?

I honestly don't see what's so difficult about this problem. If everyone just puts $10 into their savings account every month, then at the end of the year, everyone ends up with $120 in their accounts. Can we please move on to something actually challenging?

But seriously, why on earth would anyone bother trying to save a single dollar a day? 🤷

Andrew Booth29 said:I honestly don't see what's so difficult about this problem. If everyone just puts $10 into their savings account every month, then at the end of the year, everyone ends up with $120 in their accounts. Can we please move on to something actually challenging?

But seriously, why on earth would anyone bother trying to save a single dollar a day? 🤷

Now go ahead and prove that it’s actually possible. And explain how. Where on earth are you going to pull 360 million dollars in savings from?

The average salary here in America is $1.75, while the primary money supply sits at over $60 billion. Anyone could theoretically tuck away $10 every single month. But honestly, does that even matter? What is this thought experiment actually supposed to prove? 🤷
Not with the reality of things, certainly not.
It seems to me you’re just fascinated by this accounting identity—this idea that savings and investment are two sides of the same coin. But look, for someone to invest, someone else has to save. One group saves, while the other invests. To have saving at all, you actually need—well, you need two parties. Saving is essentially just a transfer of consumption from the saver to the debtor. There isn't anything controversial about that.

Andrew Booth29 said:The average salary here in America is $1.75, while the primary money supply sits at over $60 billion. Anyone could theoretically tuck away $10 every single month. But honestly, does that even matter? What is this thought experiment actually supposed to prove? 🤷
Not with the reality of things, certainly not.
It seems to me you’re just fascinated by this accounting identity—this idea that savings and investment are two sides of the same coin. But look, for someone to invest, someone else has to save. One group saves, while the other invests. To have saving at all, you actually need—well, you need two parties. Saving is essentially just a transfer of consumption from the saver to the debtor. There isn't anything controversial about that.

I wasn't asking you for an example based on America. I was asking about the example provided in the problem itself. It's a practical scenario meant to show whether or not you actually know how to solve the problem. If you don't know how to solve it, then please don't spread misinformation because your knowledge is lacking. Either educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism and then maybe we can figure out the solution together.

Maria Thomas48, you’ve laid out this completely useless, ill-defined imaginary framework that bears absolutely zero resemblance to how life actually works. You’ve essentially just conjured up a group of people obsessed with hoarding cash and then... you stopped there.
And honestly, what am I even supposed to say to that—aside from noting that I don't have the patience for these kinds of childish fantasies? 🤷

Regardless, in this little system you've dreamed up, everyone can just save money by pulling currency out of the market. But let's be real—they can't do that forever. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I have to point it out: people aren't immortal. And Santa Claus isn't real either.

Andrew Booth29 said:Maria Thomas48, you’ve laid out this completely useless, ill-defined imaginary framework that bears absolutely zero resemblance to how life actually works. You’ve essentially just conjured up a group of people obsessed with hoarding cash and then... you stopped there.
And honestly, what am I even supposed to say to that—aside from noting that I don't have the patience for these kinds of childish fantasies? 🤷

Regardless, in this little system you've dreamed up, everyone can just save money by pulling currency out of the market. But let's be real—they can't do that forever. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I have to point it out: people aren't immortal. And Santa Claus isn't real either.

It seems like every single time economists can't figure something out, they just declare it unrealistic or impossible. But there is an answer found within the economic framework of Chartalism. It just proves that the current economic theory being used in the real world simply doesn't hold water.

We can only move forward once we get rid of bad theories—both in practice and in our heads. People keep clinging to one specific theory and tossing everything else aside, even though this particular theory fails to solve a very practical task: ensuring that everyone's hard work is equally rewarded with a small monetary profit from their labor.

The way banking works right now creates money as debt, which offers a fake solution to the problem while just resulting in even more debt. Over time, that debt grows and ends up destroying people's lives and standards of living. What is the ultimate goal here? To control money as debt and make everyone dependent on it—basically making them slaves who obey the bankers.

Are you a banker?

Economics isn't some magic wand designed to fix every single imaginary problem someone manages to dream up. Seriously—tell me, how is economics supposed to solve this one: a tiny town of maybe a hundred people where every single resident insists on walking on eyelashes? How? How exactly is Chartalism going to provide a solution for that? 🤷

Andrew Booth29 said:Economics isn't some magic wand designed to fix every single imaginary problem someone manages to dream up. Seriously—tell me, how is economics supposed to solve this one: a tiny town of maybe a hundred people where every single resident insists on walking on eyelashes? How? How exactly is Chartalism going to provide a solution for that? 🤷

The kind of economics you’re pushing can't even tackle the fundamental issue, which is that globally, costs are outstripping revenue.

Give that theory a rest!

Can you actually define what constitutes a cost versus what qualifies as revenue?

Andrew Booth29 said:Can you actually define what constitutes a cost versus what qualifies as revenue?

It is all right there in any standard American economics textbook. Just come back once you have actually learned the material.

Something told me you wouldn't be able to put that into words... 🤣

Andrew Booth29 said:Something told me you wouldn't be able to put that into words... 🤣

I have a gut feeling this is a deliberate attempt to dodge the subject. It’s a classic move—when someone can't prove their point, they just start insulting the other person instead. It's a transparent tactic. I really don't want to sink to that level of conversation. Go find some fool willing to teach you macroeconomics.