Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

No, I am being serious here. I’ve been looking through your pages, and I distinctly remember seeing a formula stating that total revenue must equal total expenses. Now, suddenly, you're showing costs—or expenses, if we're being precise—exceeding the revenue. So, I’m just wondering: where am I missing the mark? Perhaps we aren't even using the same terminology?

Andrew Booth29 said:No, I am being serious here. I’ve been looking through your pages, and I distinctly remember seeing a formula stating that total revenue must equal total expenses. Now, suddenly, you're showing costs—or expenses, if we're being precise—exceeding the revenue. So, I’m just wondering: where am I missing the mark? Perhaps we aren't even using the same terminology?

I mean, who even sent you guys to those sites in the first place? All I asked was for you to demonstrate that you can handle a basic task—one based on hard work, diligence, and eventually achieving some modest savings. You know, the very thing everyone swears is the roadmap to success.

All this mocking about things we aren't even discussing... it really just feels like a way to dodge the question regarding whether you actually have the competence to speak accurately and professionally on the subject. Is this how you handled your exams back in college?

The constant pivoting away from the actual topics—inflation, the idea of money creation being debt, and the impossibility of covering costs—just shows that you refuse to admit I'm right, no matter what. Instead, you're just using technicalities and deflecting to try and score points.👎

I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. By definition, total costs must equal total revenue within a closed system—it’s a fundamental accounting identity, something you actually noted on your own page. A transaction is an exchange, plain and simple; there are always two sides to the coin—one party hands over the cash, and the other receives that exact same amount.
So, I’m asking you to please define your terms precisely, because it’s clear we aren't talking about the same thing. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something on my end, but let's get our definitions straight.

Andrew Booth29 said:I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. By definition, total costs must equal total revenue within a closed system—it’s a fundamental accounting identity, something you actually noted on your own page. A transaction is an exchange, plain and simple; there are always two sides to the coin—one party hands over the cash, and the other receives that exact same amount.
So, I’m asking you to please define your terms precisely, because it’s clear we aren't talking about the same thing. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something on my end, but let's get our definitions straight.

And what's the point of all that? You guys are missing the money supply, right? Am I supposed to be the one to point that out, or are you? It's right there in the article: https://sites.google.com/site/financ...ma-do-rjesenja. Do I really need to copy the whole thing into this thread? Everything is laid out there and it's all correct.

If I’m following your logic correctly—and I’m trying here—you’re suggesting that people find fulfillment simply because the numbers on their bank statements are ticking upward? That true human happiness is found by just cranking up the money printers and tossing cash at everyone like it's confetti? 😁

Andrew Booth29 said:If I’m following your logic correctly—and I’m trying here—you’re suggesting that people find fulfillment simply because the numbers on their bank statements are ticking upward? That true human happiness is found by just cranking up the money printers and tossing cash at everyone like it's confetti? 😁

In that scenario, we’d basically have a million capable people sitting around collecting welfare checks, wouldn't we.

Look, we see money expansion happening all the time today, but there’s always some massive debt hidden behind it. It’s important to realize that when someone makes a small profit from their labor—just like any standard American business—they are creating actual new value. Work increases the total value of all available goods. To keep things balanced, you need an appropriate amount of money to match that supply, according to your own supply and demand theory.

Now, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that this ratio of goods to money should be satisfied by money that is essentially just masking someone else's growing debt. Do you see how twisted that logic is? If we have managed to create $33 new goods but ended up being collectively deeper in debt by $40, then it's impossible to pay off that debt through production alone. Globally speaking, our costs are outpacing our income. The more we work and produce under this system, the more debt we actually pile up. Everyone sees it, even those who aren't particularly bright.

It’s called economic slavery. It's rule by debt. To end this, we have to decouple money creation from lending.
Money is being created constantly. So, your whole argument about changing things is pointless. Nothing changes; the only thing that needs to happen is returning the power of issuing money to the state, and the state shouldn't be taking out loans anymore either. Also, banks need to be stripped of their power to expand the money supply through credit, which is just a byproduct of money multiplication.

What is being discussed here isn't some crazy plan to print money recklessly. This is a scientific method proving that solving a debt crisis can be done simply without causing inflation—which is what you're exaggerating because you don't grasp the mechanics. Let me say it again: issuing government money combined with bank money multiplication via fractional reserve banking is what ultimately drives inflation. We saw this with Kennedy's reforms, which I honestly think were just a calculated diversion meant to destroy the value of our currency.

And following a similar line of thought, we had another genius like Paulson:

"We can, therefore, produce money that covers newly created value. The Federal Reserve is making a mistake by basing the money supply on the Euro rather than on American production."

Everything there is correct, except for one thing: that money shouldn't be issued as debt, and banks shouldn't be allowed to increase the money supply through lending. Since that part is missing, the whole thing feels like just another attempt to sabotage the real solution.

Anyone who actually understands macroeconomics through cash flow—the way I described it—couldn't fall for this nonsense. The more people push this, the more embarrassing it is for economic education.

Do you see the difference now between printing money with bank multiplication and printing money without it? Do I really need to repeat myself? They aren't the same. There is a massive difference.

Essentially, Maria Thomas48 is onto something, though they seem to struggle with putting it into words, and they've managed to get themselves tangled up in the whole concept of credit-based money creation, which they view as inherently flawed. While the idea of money appearing out of thin air is certainly a point of contention, that’s just how the system operates. If we were distributing soap and nothing else instead of debt, we’d probably be facing an even more absurd crisis.

By the way, Maria Thomas48, what’s your take on how The Dutchman managed to secure independence from the superpower that was Spain back then? My guess is they simply had much more sophisticated banking institutions at their disposal.

Jerry Williams41 said:Essentially, Maria Thomas48 is onto something, though they seem to struggle with putting it into words, and they've managed to get themselves tangled up in the whole concept of credit-based money creation, which they view as inherently flawed. While the idea of money appearing out of thin air is certainly a point of contention, that’s just how the system operates. If we were distributing soap and nothing else instead of debt, we’d probably be facing an even more absurd crisis.

By the way, Maria Thomas48, what’s your take on how The Dutchman managed to secure independence from the superpower that was Spain back then? My guess is they simply had much more sophisticated banking institutions at their disposal.

Having monetary expansion controlled by banks is the core issue because it creates debt that crushes both the government and the people. Only the state should have the authority to create money, not private entities for their own gain—especially when they do it poorly, triggering endless debt crises.

I honestly believe this specific reform is the only way to exit this crisis without total collapse. And there is a massive pushback against this solution happening right now (Paulson and his crowd; all those pro-European Union ad campaigns; stuff like that).

Based on these fundamental principles—staying out of the European Union and separating money creation from lending—there will be a united front between the Love America association (Roko Šikić) and Ivan Pernar’s Reform Party. That is who I plan to vote for in the next elections. Every other party that ignores these basics is just driving our country toward ruin (Republican Party, Democratic Party, Labor Party, Liberal Party, etc.).

Anyone who actually cares about their country and wants a better life will join us in this fight to escape economic slavery. It is a war, plain and simple. It requires sacrifice and persistence, but it serves the most vital goal for everyone living in America: preserving our national independence. It is just as important as any major conflict we've faced. We are essentially under occupation, and if we don't act, we might be looking at total defeat within five years.

Just look at everything Greece has been forced to sell off to try and shrink its debt, yet it does nothing to stop the debt from growing further. Selling assets and privatization only makes their situation worse.

We could live much more calmly and comfortably outside the European Union if we just reformed and broke free from this economic bondage. We wouldn't have to ruin lives through foreclosures, unemployment, tiny pensions, terrible healthcare, expensive higher education, hopelessness, and all the other symptoms that come with being enslaved to debt-based money. All of this can be fixed once everyone decides to overhaul how we regulate money and banking.

Who exactly is Roko Šikić?

Jerry Williams41 said:Who exactly is Roko Šikić?

Roko Šikić is the president of the Love America association. You can find more info at this link.

https://sites.google.com/site/rokosi...sku-roko-sikic

Jerry Williams41 said:Essentially, Maria Thomas48 is onto something, though they seem to struggle with putting it into words, and they've managed to get themselves tangled up in the whole concept of credit-based money creation, which they view as inherently flawed. While the idea of money appearing out of thin air is certainly a point of contention, that’s just how the system operates. If we were distributing soap and nothing else instead of debt, we’d probably be facing an even more absurd crisis.

By the way, Maria Thomas48, what’s your take on how The Dutchman managed to secure independence from the superpower that was Spain back then? My guess is they simply had much more sophisticated banking institutions at their disposal.

The current situation is just a total mess, honestly, but I don't get why we don't just tie currency to gold and call it a day. Why does money have to be all virtual anyway? As long as it's just digital numbers and its value is dictated by market whims rather than something you can actually hold in your hand, things are gonna go sideways. We'll see hyperinflation because someone like Suker decides to hit the money printer button every time they need a quick fix, or it'll be because of the big banks... personally, I think both ways suck.

Then again, it might make more sense to shift that power from the banks over to the government—since at least the people pick the leaders, whereas banks aren't answerable to anyone... But given the American mentality—and let's be real, the way American politicians act too—I wouldn't bet a dime that wouldn't end in a complete fiasco... So yeah, Gold Standard. That's the move. Redeemable in Gold or silver.

fadedwolf20 said:The current situation is just a total mess, honestly, but I don't get why we don't just tie currency to gold and call it a day. Why does money have to be all virtual anyway? As long as it's just digital numbers and its value is dictated by market whims rather than something you can actually hold in your hand, things are gonna go sideways. We'll see hyperinflation because someone like Suker decides to hit the money printer button every time they need a quick fix, or it'll be because of the big banks... personally, I think both ways suck.

Then again, it might make more sense to shift that power from the banks over to the government—since at least the people pick the leaders, whereas banks aren't answerable to anyone... But given the American mentality—and let's be real, the way American politicians act too—I wouldn't bet a dime that wouldn't end in a complete fiasco... So yeah, Gold Standard. That's the move. Redeemable in Gold or silver.

The bankers are actually the ones pushing for a metal standard. Most of the gold mines are owned by the big banks anyway. Even a country like Greece might end up selling off a gold mine just to cover their debts. I actually laid out the whole issue with the metal standard in a very straightforward article here: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja. If you've read it, we can dive into the details, or if there's anything confusing, just let me know. The answer is basically sitting right there in the second paragraph.

Banks are going to keep manufacturing money regardless of whether we stick to a Gold Standard or not. Personally, I don't mind gold—it’s a decent way to strip the power of money creation out of the hands of politicians—but it brings up that exact headache Maria Thomas48 keeps pointing out, which is the issue of hoarding or, if you ask me, an unspoken monopoly on gold as a functional medium of exchange.

fadedwolf20 said:The current situation is just a total mess, honestly, but I don't get why we don't just tie currency to gold and call it a day. Why does money have to be all virtual anyway? As long as it's just digital numbers and its value is dictated by market whims rather than something you can actually hold in your hand, things are gonna go sideways. We'll see hyperinflation because someone like Suker decides to hit the money printer button every time they need a quick fix, or it'll be because of the big banks... personally, I think both ways suck.

Then again, it might make more sense to shift that power from the banks over to the government—since at least the people pick the leaders, whereas banks aren't answerable to anyone... But given the American mentality—and let's be real, the way American politicians act too—I wouldn't bet a dime that wouldn't end in a complete fiasco... So yeah, Gold Standard. That's the move. Redeemable in Gold or silver.

It’s not exactly true that banks aren't accountable to anyone. Removing state regulation would just bring in market regulation, which is far more efficient.

To put it simply—banks that want to stay in business long-term have to maintain the trust of their clients. Think about it: what kind of bank, with what kind of reputation, would you actually trust with your life savings? The solid ones would thrive, while the small-time crooks would go under almost immediately.
Banks are ultimately accountable to their customers; if they fail them, they're out of business.

If anything, government regulation just plays into the hands of the massive banks that have cozy deals with the state, effectively killing off any real competition.

Jerry Williams41 said:Banks are going to keep manufacturing money regardless of whether we stick to a Gold Standard or not. Personally, I don't mind gold—it’s a decent way to strip the power of money creation out of the hands of politicians—but it brings up that exact headache Maria Thomas48 keeps pointing out, which is the issue of hoarding or, if you ask me, an unspoken monopoly on gold as a functional medium of exchange.

I'm with you. Gold doesn't have to be the only game in town. Money can be anything people actually decide to use. Take Bitcoin, for instance—a purely digital currency that's only been around for a few years, yet its user base keeps climbing. Its implementation is actually quite fascinating because it effectively kills off central control and the endless printing of new money.
There's no reason we can't have multiple parallel monetary systems running at once. Silver, gold, paper banknotes, digital assets—anything goes.

Jerry Williams41 said:Banks are going to keep manufacturing money regardless of whether we stick to a Gold Standard or not. Personally, I don't mind gold—it’s a decent way to strip the power of money creation out of the hands of politicians—but it brings up that exact headache Maria Thomas48 keeps pointing out, which is the issue of hoarding or, if you ask me, an unspoken monopoly on gold as a functional medium of exchange.

Banks can't actually manufacture money if we just pass a law to stop them. If the reserve requirement is set higher than 50%, there's no money expansion through fractional reserve banking. It’s actually pretty simple to kill off money expansion, and it would be a huge win for the Reform Party.

Maria Thomas48, look, the only way you actually stop the money printing machine is if you have a 100% reserve, so I’m just sitting here wondering what kind of math you’re using to claim that a 50% reserve somehow achieves that same result.

you guys just never stop, do you?🙏🙏🙏

Canada, Mexico, and North Mexico are sitting on tons of gold reserves,
but we don't have a single ounce to our name!

http://www.srebrozlato.com/cro-news/...-rezervi.shtml

The truth is, we sold off every bit of gold we inherited after the breakup of America. We basically dumped it all when prices were at their lowest. 😁

http://nedjeljnikomentar.wordpress.com-bivse-sfrj/

If you ask me, we really ought to be focusing our attention elsewhere:

We’re looking at two main pillars here... raw materials and energy.

You take those raw materials, apply energy, and—presto—you get a finished product.

The real issue is the balance... raw materials and energy have to be perfectly synced if you want efficient production. If one side is lacking—or if you have too much of one and not enough of the other—everything falls out of whack. It just isn't efficient.

So, really, we should be building a system designed to efficiently balance that relationship between resources and power.

Energy can't be conjured out of thin air, nor can it be destroyed; it can only be transferred from one form to another, or moved from one body to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

And as for those raw materials? If we aren't replenishing them... we'll just burn through everything until there's nothing left.

Jerry Williams41 said:Maria Thomas48, look, the only way you actually stop the money printing machine is if you have a 100% reserve, so I’m just sitting here wondering what kind of math you’re using to claim that a 50% reserve somehow achieves that same result.

It’s all about perspective. Having a 50% deposit requirement is effectively the same thing as having 100% credit.

I put together a table here that simulates constant credit growth over time. You achieve this by shortening the deposit intervals, which causes the amount of issued credit to drop.

The small diagram shows how bank profits grow relative to the actual amount of cash brought in. The larger diagram tracks the loans—that's the money being emitted as debt—along with the liquid cash in circulation, the coverage by real cash, and the bank's earnings.

On my page at http://sites.google.com/site/financi...v/profit-banke I laid out a simulation for generating banking profits through credit expansion. There's also an XLS spreadsheet at http://sites.google.com/site/financi...attredirects=0 where you can tweak the parameters yourself.

Anyone wondering why money just vanishes in this system (like when high interest rates trigger restrictive monetary policy) can now see how "stabilization" is easily manufactured through massive bank profits. Honestly, it's just a series of moves designed to hide a scam. For a scam to last, you can't have infinite credit expansion because that triggers inflation. If that happens, people start asking questions. It often happens that countries with huge exports—which basically offsets the local money emission—run into inflation issues. In those cases, the banking sector has to park their earnings overseas. That's actually the explanation for why there was so much investment in foreign bonds. It's simple: it encourages more exports and keeps domestic inflation down. Even China raised its reserve requirements just to tighten the money supply in their own market. These foreign investments are really just a way to acquire assets in other nations, creating a closed loop of economic servitude (highly developed exporting nation -> foreign investment -> increased lending in importing nations -> asset liquidation to pay off debt -> bankruptcy).