Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

The documentaries by Bill Clinton, MasterClass, Crime and Punishment, and The Wizard of Oz—they all dive into our monetary system and how it’s built on fractional reserve banking. They cover a specific slice of history quite well, I'll give them that. But the massive issue with these films is that they offer what amounts to a fake solution—or honestly, no solution at all. Their "fix" usually involves ditching the current fiat system only to swap it out for a different version of the exact same thing. The whole idea is to strip power away from the bankers, stop them from conjuring money out of thin air, and hand that authority over to "good, honest politicians." Personally? I think it's incredibly naive to believe you can trust a politician any more than you trust a banker. Just because we get to vote for politicians and we don't vote for bankers doesn't mean they're trustworthy—I mean, even Adolf Hitler won his elections. These same politicians are the ones who gave the banks this monopoly in the first place. It works perfectly for them because they profit immensely from the setup, so they just keep putting their own interests ahead of the public good, day in and day out. Politicians love spending way more than the country actually earns by cutting taxes and creating this hidden tax we call inflation. Then they turn around and pass laws that strip away our freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism, crime, or drugs (you know, those laws that restrict internet freedom are almost always branded as "protecting kids from pornography"). It’s just crazy to base a total monetary reform on the assumption that politicians will suddenly become wise and incorruptible. The problem with money being created out of nothing isn't about *who* is doing the creating—it's about the fact that it's being created that way at all.

The answer to the fiat problem isn't more fiat; it's moving toward real money backed by tangible assets. Historically, gold and silver have been the best players for that role. Maybe tomorrow people decide they want something else entirely, but the point is, we should at least have the freedom to choose.

Those precious metals have always been—and always will be—universal stores of value. Bankers and politicians can't easily mess with their worth. Actually, bankers *want* to own gold because it protects the wealth they've amassed by sitting right at the injection points of the money supply. They hate a system based on precious metals because it stops them from cranking up their earnings. Their bread and butter is interest on loans. If you use real money, the money supply is limited by the actual amount of gold and silver in their vaults. But if banks have the power to create money out of thin air, they can lend and collect interest essentially forever.

Maria Thomas48, you're basically chasing a utopian fantasy. You want a society where everyone has exactly what they need, and you've decided the banking conspiracy is the main roadblock. There's some truth there, sure, but it's not the core issue. The reality is we simply aren't wealthy enough for everyone to be living large. Plus, like a true socialist, you seem convinced that the state will make the right calls if led by wise, unbribable leaders—so your solution is to give them even *more* power. But wait, they're the ones who handed the bankers this leverage to begin with! You claim my good fortune is someone else's misfortune, but in the system you're proposing, the sheer amount of misery would actually skyrocket, and you're too blind to see it. You've got this idealized vision of the world, but you lack the data and the perspective to see things realistically or offer a solution that actually moves us forward. And honestly, maybe nobody can, because the world and society are way too messy and complex to be boiled down to a few simple variables. The current system is broken, and you're great at spotting the cracks, but in my humble opinion, your proposed fix is even worse.

So, behind all your charts and sketches, there's this simple, looping logic: take the power to create money out of thin air away from the bankers and give it to the politicians (the same ones who gave it to the bankers), and then somehow, magically, the politicians will be wiser and more selfless, and everything will be perfect. My luck won't depend on someone else's bad break anymore.
It's a dangerous illusion built on pure ignorance.

Maria Thomas48 said:Standard stuff
-------------------
1. managing business accounts
2. handling personal accounts
3. lending money from savings
4. currency exchange booths

Things that aren't actually banking
--------------------------------------
1. Creating money

If you take the Federal Reserve and combine it with every single commercial bank into one giant entity, you end up with a corporation that just conjures money out of thin air. They lend it out and build their entire profit model on that. To keep people from noticing the scam through massive inflation—since the debt always outweighs the actual cash issued—they have to choke the economy with restrictive monetary policies. It’s how they hide the fact that costs are outpacing the supply.

Most of the money circulating in accounts is just credit. Real physical cash is mostly sitting there as required reserves, with only a tiny fraction kept in a bank vault. There's basically no way to pay interest on almost all the money in circulation because any new money being introduced is created as debt itself. There isn't a real source for this money. Everything is just credit, except for those tiny bits of interest on the reserve funds, which the bank ends up pocketing anyway.

Great job, you finally grasped how a Ponzi scheme works

So then you just set up something like the real estate market—which keeps climbing indefinitely—and you'll always find fresh suckers to invest. At least until the bubble bursts (which is happening right about now).

Your system is exactly the same... totally unsustainable. And it's unsustainable because constant growth is a mathematical impossibility.

So... do you actually get that?

Can you wrap your head around what a Ponzi scheme is, and realize that the very system you're proposing is just another one?

🤔

silentmaker78 said:The documentaries by Bill Clinton, MasterClass, Crime and Punishment, and The Wizard of Oz—they all dive into our monetary system and how it’s built on fractional reserve banking. They cover a specific slice of history quite well, I'll give them that. But the massive issue with these films is that they offer what amounts to a fake solution—or honestly, no solution at all. Their "fix" usually involves ditching the current fiat system only to swap it out for a different version of the exact same thing. The whole idea is to strip power away from the bankers, stop them from conjuring money out of thin air, and hand that authority over to "good, honest politicians." Personally? I think it's incredibly naive to believe you can trust a politician any more than you trust a banker. Just because we get to vote for politicians and we don't vote for bankers doesn't mean they're trustworthy—I mean, even Adolf Hitler won his elections. These same politicians are the ones who gave the banks this monopoly in the first place. It works perfectly for them because they profit immensely from the setup, so they just keep putting their own interests ahead of the public good, day in and day out. Politicians love spending way more than the country actually earns by cutting taxes and creating this hidden tax we call inflation. Then they turn around and pass laws that strip away our freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism, crime, or drugs (you know, those laws that restrict internet freedom are almost always branded as "protecting kids from pornography"). It’s just crazy to base a total monetary reform on the assumption that politicians will suddenly become wise and incorruptible. The problem with money being created out of nothing isn't about *who* is doing the creating—it's about the fact that it's being created that way at all.

The answer to the fiat problem isn't more fiat; it's moving toward real money backed by tangible assets. Historically, gold and silver have been the best players for that role. Maybe tomorrow people decide they want something else entirely, but the point is, we should at least have the freedom to choose.

Those precious metals have always been—and always will be—universal stores of value. Bankers and politicians can't easily mess with their worth. Actually, bankers *want* to own gold because it protects the wealth they've amassed by sitting right at the injection points of the money supply. They hate a system based on precious metals because it stops them from cranking up their earnings. Their bread and butter is interest on loans. If you use real money, the money supply is limited by the actual amount of gold and silver in their vaults. But if banks have the power to create money out of thin air, they can lend and collect interest essentially forever.

Maria Thomas48, you're basically chasing a utopian fantasy. You want a society where everyone has exactly what they need, and you've decided the banking conspiracy is the main roadblock. There's some truth there, sure, but it's not the core issue. The reality is we simply aren't wealthy enough for everyone to be living large. Plus, like a true socialist, you seem convinced that the state will make the right calls if led by wise, unbribable leaders—so your solution is to give them even *more* power. But wait, they're the ones who handed the bankers this leverage to begin with! You claim my good fortune is someone else's misfortune, but in the system you're proposing, the sheer amount of misery would actually skyrocket, and you're too blind to see it. You've got this idealized vision of the world, but you lack the data and the perspective to see things realistically or offer a solution that actually moves us forward. And honestly, maybe nobody can, because the world and society are way too messy and complex to be boiled down to a few simple variables. The current system is broken, and you're great at spotting the cracks, but in my humble opinion, your proposed fix is even worse.

So, behind all your charts and sketches, there's this simple, looping logic: take the power to create money out of thin air away from the bankers and give it to the politicians (the same ones who gave it to the bankers), and then somehow, magically, the politicians will be wiser and more selfless, and everything will be perfect. My luck won't depend on someone else's bad break anymore.
It's a dangerous illusion built on pure ignorance.

Two variables:

Raw materials. It’s funny how we always jump straight to the finished product—the shiny gadget, the polished car, the sleek smartphone—without ever really stopping to think about what's actually inside them. Everything starts somewhere, right? Just piles of dirt, ore, and basic elements waiting to be turned into something useful. It’s the foundation of everything we build, yet it feels like the most overlooked part of the whole equation. Why is that?

2. Energy

Raw materials and energy—they really have to scale in lockstep if you want anything remotely close to efficient production. It’s simple math, isn't it? You can't just pump more resources into the system without the power to actually process them, otherwise, you're just sitting there with a pile of expensive inventory and nowhere to go. It's all about that balance.

It’s pretty obvious if you look at any game out there...



Money is basically just a scrap of paper—completely worthless and totally irrelevant on its own. It’s supposed to represent value, sure, but that’s just an illusion, isn't it? It isn't the actual thing. So, if you really think about it... banking isn't even necessary.

silentmaker78 said:The documentaries by Bill Clinton, MasterClass, Crime and Punishment, and The Wizard of Oz—they all dive into our monetary system and how it’s built on fractional reserve banking. They cover a specific slice of history quite well, I'll give them that. But the massive issue with these films is that they offer what amounts to a fake solution—or honestly, no solution at all. Their "fix" usually involves ditching the current fiat system only to swap it out for a different version of the exact same thing. The whole idea is to strip power away from the bankers, stop them from conjuring money out of thin air, and hand that authority over to "good, honest politicians." Personally? I think it's incredibly naive to believe you can trust a politician any more than you trust a banker. Just because we get to vote for politicians and we don't vote for bankers doesn't mean they're trustworthy—I mean, even Adolf Hitler won his elections. These same politicians are the ones who gave the banks this monopoly in the first place. It works perfectly for them because they profit immensely from the setup, so they just keep putting their own interests ahead of the public good, day in and day out. Politicians love spending way more than the country actually earns by cutting taxes and creating this hidden tax we call inflation. Then they turn around and pass laws that strip away our freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism, crime, or drugs (you know, those laws that restrict internet freedom are almost always branded as "protecting kids from pornography"). It’s just crazy to base a total monetary reform on the assumption that politicians will suddenly become wise and incorruptible. The problem with money being created out of nothing isn't about *who* is doing the creating—it's about the fact that it's being created that way at all.

The answer to the fiat problem isn't more fiat; it's moving toward real money backed by tangible assets. Historically, gold and silver have been the best players for that role. Maybe tomorrow people decide they want something else entirely, but the point is, we should at least have the freedom to choose.

Those precious metals have always been—and always will be—universal stores of value. Bankers and politicians can't easily mess with their worth. Actually, bankers *want* to own gold because it protects the wealth they've amassed by sitting right at the injection points of the money supply. They hate a system based on precious metals because it stops them from cranking up their earnings. Their bread and butter is interest on loans. If you use real money, the money supply is limited by the actual amount of gold and silver in their vaults. But if banks have the power to create money out of thin air, they can lend and collect interest essentially forever.

Maria Thomas48, you're basically chasing a utopian fantasy. You want a society where everyone has exactly what they need, and you've decided the banking conspiracy is the main roadblock. There's some truth there, sure, but it's not the core issue. The reality is we simply aren't wealthy enough for everyone to be living large. Plus, like a true socialist, you seem convinced that the state will make the right calls if led by wise, unbribable leaders—so your solution is to give them even *more* power. But wait, they're the ones who handed the bankers this leverage to begin with! You claim my good fortune is someone else's misfortune, but in the system you're proposing, the sheer amount of misery would actually skyrocket, and you're too blind to see it. You've got this idealized vision of the world, but you lack the data and the perspective to see things realistically or offer a solution that actually moves us forward. And honestly, maybe nobody can, because the world and society are way too messy and complex to be boiled down to a few simple variables. The current system is broken, and you're great at spotting the cracks, but in my humble opinion, your proposed fix is even worse.

So, behind all your charts and sketches, there's this simple, looping logic: take the power to create money out of thin air away from the bankers and give it to the politicians (the same ones who gave it to the bankers), and then somehow, magically, the politicians will be wiser and more selfless, and everything will be perfect. My luck won't depend on someone else's bad break anymore.
It's a dangerous illusion built on pure ignorance.

I guess I'm right... which is exactly why Maria Thomas48 won't even pick up the phone when I call her anymore.

🤣 😂

He’s a little sensitive... 🙂

🙂

silentmaker78 said:The documentaries by Bill Clinton, MasterClass, Crime and Punishment, and The Wizard of Oz—they all dive into our monetary system and how it’s built on fractional reserve banking. They cover a specific slice of history quite well, I'll give them that. But the massive issue with these films is that they offer what amounts to a fake solution—or honestly, no solution at all. Their "fix" usually involves ditching the current fiat system only to swap it out for a different version of the exact same thing. The whole idea is to strip power away from the bankers, stop them from conjuring money out of thin air, and hand that authority over to "good, honest politicians." Personally? I think it's incredibly naive to believe you can trust a politician any more than you trust a banker. Just because we get to vote for politicians and we don't vote for bankers doesn't mean they're trustworthy—I mean, even Adolf Hitler won his elections. These same politicians are the ones who gave the banks this monopoly in the first place. It works perfectly for them because they profit immensely from the setup, so they just keep putting their own interests ahead of the public good, day in and day out. Politicians love spending way more than the country actually earns by cutting taxes and creating this hidden tax we call inflation. Then they turn around and pass laws that strip away our freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism, crime, or drugs (you know, those laws that restrict internet freedom are almost always branded as "protecting kids from pornography"). It’s just crazy to base a total monetary reform on the assumption that politicians will suddenly become wise and incorruptible. The problem with money being created out of nothing isn't about *who* is doing the creating—it's about the fact that it's being created that way at all.

The answer to the fiat problem isn't more fiat; it's moving toward real money backed by tangible assets. Historically, gold and silver have been the best players for that role. Maybe tomorrow people decide they want something else entirely, but the point is, we should at least have the freedom to choose.

Those precious metals have always been—and always will be—universal stores of value. Bankers and politicians can't easily mess with their worth. Actually, bankers *want* to own gold because it protects the wealth they've amassed by sitting right at the injection points of the money supply. They hate a system based on precious metals because it stops them from cranking up their earnings. Their bread and butter is interest on loans. If you use real money, the money supply is limited by the actual amount of gold and silver in their vaults. But if banks have the power to create money out of thin air, they can lend and collect interest essentially forever.

Maria Thomas48, you're basically chasing a utopian fantasy. You want a society where everyone has exactly what they need, and you've decided the banking conspiracy is the main roadblock. There's some truth there, sure, but it's not the core issue. The reality is we simply aren't wealthy enough for everyone to be living large. Plus, like a true socialist, you seem convinced that the state will make the right calls if led by wise, unbribable leaders—so your solution is to give them even *more* power. But wait, they're the ones who handed the bankers this leverage to begin with! You claim my good fortune is someone else's misfortune, but in the system you're proposing, the sheer amount of misery would actually skyrocket, and you're too blind to see it. You've got this idealized vision of the world, but you lack the data and the perspective to see things realistically or offer a solution that actually moves us forward. And honestly, maybe nobody can, because the world and society are way too messy and complex to be boiled down to a few simple variables. The current system is broken, and you're great at spotting the cracks, but in my humble opinion, your proposed fix is even worse.

So, behind all your charts and sketches, there's this simple, looping logic: take the power to create money out of thin air away from the bankers and give it to the politicians (the same ones who gave it to the bankers), and then somehow, magically, the politicians will be wiser and more selfless, and everything will be perfect. My luck won't depend on someone else's bad break anymore.
It's a dangerous illusion built on pure ignorance.

I think we're all on the same page here. It feels like certain interest groups always try to put themselves front and center, but they end up doing it at everyone else's expense. It’s frustrating. In my view, the golden rule for any kind of community or shared life should just be "live and let live." You can't have one person's freedom stepping all over someone else's. That shouldn't be complicated. Freedom for one person shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's liberty. Simple as that.

When you look at all the different ways we could go about regulating money, I honestly can't wrap my head around a worse solution than this one. It just doesn't make sense.

Politicians just love spending more than the government actually brings in through tax revenue. It’s a cycle. They run up the deficit, and then they create this whole other hidden tax called inflation. It’s basically happening right now.

That’s true enough, I guess, but there is one massive caveat here. What exactly is our economic science even doing? Can we actually trust these academic types—who can't even agree among themselves, even when they claim to be intellectuals or patriots—that the current economic policy is flawed and needs a total overhaul? Doesn't that bother you guys?

It’s just crazy to build an entire monetary reform on the assumption that politicians are actually going to be wise or uncorruptible. That's not how it works. The real issue with printing money out of thin air isn't really about who is pulling the lever. It's deeper than that. The way things are being built from the ground up... it’s just fundamentally flawed. The whole process itself is broken..

I can sort of see where they're coming from with that bolded part. The whole process is just fundamentally broken. We really need to draw a hard line between actually creating value and just borrowing against it. Basically, we should ban any kind of financial maneuvering that acts like it’s printing money out of thin air. That kind of control belongs strictly to the federal government.

Fixing the whole fiat money mess isn't going to happen by just printing more fiat. It’s not working. We need real money. I mean actual, tangible assets that you can point to. Historically, we've always seen gold and silver play that role best. They work. Maybe tomorrow people decide they want something else entirely. That's fine. The important thing is having the freedom to make that choice.

I think that's a completely wrong assumption. We just can't tie money to some other material asset for one very simple reason. Every single time you create something new, there really ought to be a mirror image happening on the other side—something like building up a solid metal foundation to balance it all out. Doesn't it seem a little economically irrational to have an entire industry dedicated solely to manufacturing the metal substrate for currency? I mean, it feels like it’s pushing the limits of common sense.

Banks don't want a system built on precious metals. It’s pretty simple, really. If we move toward that, they lose their edge. Their whole business model relies on interest rates from loans. That's the core of it. If you actually use real money, then the total money supply is tied directly to the amount of gold and silver sitting in their vaults. But if banks have the power to just create money out of thin air? Then they can lend and collect interest indefinitely. There's no limit to it like that.

Look, you're completely missing the point here. First, just go find out who actually owns the majority of the gold mines. Then, look at who holds the most physical gold in their vaults.

A gold standard is really just a way to make the money supply finite so that whoever holds the reins can maintain total control. Plus, if the amount of cash is limited, it becomes much easier to dictate interest rates however they want. We see it all the time now—different political leaders basically crawling to The Wolf of Wall Street on their knees, begging them to drop interest rates just so they can look good to voters. 😕

Maria Thomas48, you’re essentially chasing a utopian fantasy. You want a society where everyone gets exactly what they need, and you think the banking system is the main thing standing in the way. There’s some truth there, I guess, but it isn’t the core issue... You claim that my current luck is just someone else's misfortune. In the system you're proposing, the amount of misery would actually skyrocket, but you're too blind to see that. The current system definitely has plenty of flaws, and you're great at spotting some of them, but honestly, your proposed solution looks even worse to me.

I’m not here to hand out final solutions. We’re all here to figure out what works best for us. For starters, I never said the money supply should be handed directly to politicians; I said it should belong to the state. And the state is made up of several branches: the Political, the Judicial, and the Monetary. How did you conclude that I was suggesting we hand monetary power over to politicians?

Politicians are the ones making the laws, and they might accidentally make a mistake that subordinates monetary power to political interests. But since we are supposedly getting close to a solution, it would be incredibly stupid to hand over the highest authority in the land—the one our very lives depend on—to someone like, say, Elon Musk.

A nation's monetary power is on the same level as its territorial sovereignty. Fighting to reclaim monetary power is actually more important than fighting for territory. Without control over our own money, the country will just fall apart. Someone like Milton Friedman talked about this plenty of times.

I wish you could understand that monetary power isn't just a function you can delegate to someone else without facing massive consequences. Calling it "utopian" to demand that monetary power return to the domain of the state is shortsighted and, frankly, borderline treasonous. I won't get bogged down in the political background, but try to realize that every credit issued that inflates the money supply relative to actual cash represents a direct loss to the country we live in. Someone created the money we use today, and they are profiting from it. It's simple. Someone acted like a parasite, sucking the value out of the entire nation just to line their own pockets using money that doesn't even truly exist.

Do you still believe the US shouldn't reclaim its monetary sovereignty and rebuild it based on scientific principles? This power wouldn't sit with politicians; it would sit with actual experts. These professionals would, if necessary, guarantee everything they own—even their lives—to ensure they perform this duty for the good of the American people. Look at China; those who betray the state for private interests end up facing execution. There are no excuses here. All of our fates depend on the foundations of the economy—the monetary authority. Its job should also include protecting the domestic economy from predatory foreign pricing. You can't run a separate monetary policy while simultaneously running a tariff policy.
A dedicated team of experts—not these pseudo-experts who can't even predict basic economic trends—must lead the monetary policy, regulating the money supply, customs barriers, banking operations, and the financial markets. The sooner we grasp this, the sooner we escape economic slavery.

Just separating how money is created from how it gets lent out isn't some magic fix, and it definitely isn't an answer to just handing the keys of money printing over to politicians. The actual solution is way more complicated than that, but you can't dodge it if we want to survive. We have to start by accepting that the current state of The Wolf of Wall Street is driving us all toward a total collapse, even though a real way out actually exists.

And I should probably add this too. We aren't going to reach our target standard of living just by printing our own currency. We can only achieve what our actual capacity allows. That depends on things like how hard we work, having a solid strategy for investing in vital goals, boosting manufacturing productivity, building up our own domestic industries, and all that stuff.

Look, American economic science does pretty much the same thing as the rest of the world—it just kind of wanders around aimlessly, throwing out a hundred different theories and half-baked ideas about how things "should" be done. Economics isn't exactly an exact science, you know?

Honestly, it’d worry me way more if all our economists actually agreed on something 😁.

And this whole idea that money supply needs to chase GDP growth? Doesn't sit right with me. It’s perfectly natural for prices to drop—that's just what happens when things get more efficient. When that happens, everyone holding cash wins because their money actually buys more stuff than it did yesterday.

Check out this paper if you want to go down the rabbit hole: http://www.econ.umn.edu/~kehoe/papers/AKaer2004.pdf.

silentmaker78 said:Look, American economic science does pretty much the same thing as the rest of the world—it just kind of wanders around aimlessly, throwing out a hundred different theories and half-baked ideas about how things "should" be done. Economics isn't exactly an exact science, you know?

Honestly, it’d worry me way more if all our economists actually agreed on something 😁.

And this whole idea that money supply needs to chase GDP growth? Doesn't sit right with me. It’s perfectly natural for prices to drop—that's just what happens when things get more efficient. When that happens, everyone holding cash wins because their money actually buys more stuff than it did yesterday.

Check out this paper if you want to go down the rabbit hole: http://www.econ.umn.edu/~kehoe/papers/AKaer2004.pdf.

If I'm noticing anything, if you can't reach a solution, people just say there isn't a good theory, right. Meaning, nobody knows.

The idea that money needs to track output growth doesn't seem right to me.

There is one thing that disproves that. It’s the monetary profit coming out of every single production cycle. That is part of the turnover that gets pulled out of circulation, which creates savings. Money needs to be added in exactly the amount that gets converted into profit. If more products are produced during that process, then naturally their prices will drop. But if you don't add money, all we have left is savings. But how do you generate profit from savings if you aren't adding money into the system? Where is the profit on a loan going to come from? The person who builds savings based on them can drain the remaining free money through interest, and that's how the whole system crashes. So, a system without monetary expansion is basically doomed.

This issue usually shows up as a decrease in money circulation. Since GDP is essentially the product of the money supply and its velocity, any drop in the speed of circulation leads to a drop in GDP. Because of that, restrictive monetary policy leads straight to falling production and crisis. You can find more on this topic on the pages of the late George Washington: http://noncredit-money.org/?cat=31&lang=sr

You have to realize that aggressive monetary expansion is exactly what kept the ultra-wealthy afloat. Their net worth basically got sliced in half right when the crisis hit. If the Fed hadn't started printing money, their wealth would be way lower today and the wealth gap wouldn't look the way it does.

This is ridiculous. You’re talking about people whose wealth was supposedly "nearly halved" at the start of the crash, but here's the kicker: those same people are the ones who decided to print the money. And they didn't just print free cash—they printed debt-based money with higher interest rates this time around. It's the same crowd.

When you crunch all the numbers, wealth was lost during this crisis.

Real wealth can't just disappear. It only changes hands.
The "wealth" people claim was lost in the crisis was nothing but virtual numbers on a screen. It was treated like real value only because the big economic players and major agencies set those virtual prices specifically to extract actual, physical profit and real value from the system.

Instead of playing around with these childish banking models, why don't we just flip the entire business model on its head?
Everything else is just a byproduct of that foundation anyway, so once you fix the core, everything else will just fall into place and adapt itself.

Christian Clark2 said:Instead of playing around with these childish banking models, why don't we just flip the entire business model on its head?
Everything else is just a byproduct of that foundation anyway, so once you fix the core, everything else will just fall into place and adapt itself.

The opportunism we've seen over the last 20 years has basically driven us straight into massive debt and the fire sale of our national assets. Honestly, I don't think there's any room left for that kind of opportunistic thinking if we ever want to see actual progress.

Look, let’s just lay all the cards on the table here:
1) Most of the massive corporations and major banks in the US are foreign-owned. They basically set the tempo, bleeding Americans dry and forcing us into this whole master-servant dynamic where the owners can just do whatever they want with us.
2) More and more Americans are losing their livelihoods, and honestly, our unemployment rates are looking pretty abysmal compared to our neighbors.
3) The government’s social safety net? It’s practically non-existent. The laws are a joke—for example, you’ve got small business owners struggling to stay afloat who end up paying for childcare$33 just because they reported minimum wage, while someone making way less might actually get some help$167 simply because they’re playing by the rules. Basically, a crooked system ends up rewarding the people trying to cheat it.
4) Mortality rates are climbing fast because there’s zero support—or maybe just incredibly weak incentives—for young families, pregnant women, or anyone trying to buy a home. We don't even see basic things like a flexible day off for working moms with two kids, which is totally standard in places like Sweden.
5) Corruption and crime are everywhere, especially when you look at boardrooms and the leadership tiers of the biggest companies and political parties.

So, if you ask me, I’m predicting the US will soon become a place where the quality of life drops down to levels similar to Bulgaria (which, let’s face it, would be a new low for us). You’ll have most Americans stuck doing menial labor, while those who actually have decent jobs either won't get paid enough to survive or will just pack up and leave the country in droves. (By the way, in just the last year, more of my friends have moved abroad than the total number of people who left in the previous five years combined). Of course, there’ll always be a tiny sliver of Americans living like they’re in Switzerland or Sweden, but the gap between them and everyone else is only going to widen—kind of like the extreme wealth disparity you see in Ukraine or Russia.

I suspect the title of this thread—Banking the Pernar Way—might have been met with some immediate backlash, yet if you observe the landscape day after day, it becomes increasingly clear just how much foresight Pernar actually possesses.

The banking establishment is systematically deceiving the American public.

Everyone advocating for the removal of currency clauses conveniently ignores one crucial factor: the impact on savers. That is the alarmist warning coming from Franjo Luković, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase. It is a remarkably irresponsible stance to take, as it serves no purpose other than to incite panic among depositors, potentially triggering a dangerous bank run. If a high-level banker is behaving this recklessly, it begs the question: why must the rest of us exercise such extreme caution with our own words just to prevent a mass exodus of capital from the banking system?

Luković is banking on the public’s short memory. It is worth remembering that back when foreign currency clauses weren't even a factor in consumer loans, Wells Fargo's depositors still held significant foreign holdings. There isn't a single savings account out there that banks won't find a way to claim, regardless of whether those old clauses existed or not. Even during the old era, people kept their hard-earned foreign currency in state banks, which essentially provided the entire nation with its liquidity. What we are seeing here is nothing more than the classic high-stakes bluffing typical of predatory credit sharks. In America, we have an endless supply of CEOs, directors, and managers who are perfectly willing to sell out the entire nation and our collective interests just to bolster their own company's quarterly earnings. While figures like Stipe Mason and Ivo Josipović keep us distracted with partisan nonsense, and self-proclaimed "national leaders" dismantle any viable alternatives, the reality of our lives is actually being dictated by Franjo Luković and Božo Prka. We have reached a strange civilizational turning point: the underground is actually more honest than our official institutions. You don't have to worry about a loan shark seizing your property and then sitting on top of your paycheck simultaneously. In today's world, the lone loan shark is perhaps the only remaining representative of a simpler, albeit cheaper, society. He acts as his own governor, his own bank, his own notary, his own teller, his own lawyer, and his own debt collector. You might have even heard stories of a lender unilaterally "notarizing" a loan or hiking interest rates without warning. At this rate, traditional banks have become obsolete. You can settle your bills much more cheaply at a local post office.

Lately, banks have been peddling nothing more than glorified loan shark schemes under the guise of balloon loans. For anyone still struggling with those old foreign currency clauses tied to the Swiss franc, the exchange rate trap has essentially been set at the level of... $2.00The current overflow isn't some artistic accumulation; it is effectively a new Swiss franc bubble, complete with interest rates cleverly disguised under the footballing term "ball management fees." One has to wonder if our cabinet members, the Federal Reserve governors, and the big bankers have actually offered us anything at all, or if this proposal is simply their way of popping our own bubbles. They claim to feel a sense of immense relief. How exactly are we supposed to characterize people like that? It’s just more pearls of wisdom from the local loan sharks. If the Swiss franc exchange rate drops below... $2.00Furthermore, both the interest rates and the principal will be calculated based on... $2.00I suspect this monstrous idea was conceived by Željko Rohatinski while he was busy pumping wastewater away from his estate in Beverly Hills. Clogged drains have a way of creating significant logistical and health headaches; the water rises quickly, yet it drains far too slowly. Fortunately, the local government responded favorably, lowering the road grade specifically to accommodate the famous governor’s needs. Yes, exactly—that is how one handles things. If your manhole isn't functioning, simply lower the entire street! Having learned his lesson, Željko Rohatinski has returned to pumping Swiss francs, which remain overvalued on the global market. The notion of fixing the road-to-exchange rate at a lower level practically presented itself.

Most of us have seen those Hollywood movies where a predatory bank swoops in to seize a family's home, forcing them to pack up and move to a new city to start over. It’s a classic trope, but I often wonder why actors like Božo Prka or Franjo Luković are the ones typically cast to play these cinematic villains. In reality, the situation in America is far more dramatic and sinister. Here, the banking system doesn't just target your house; they lay claim to everything you own, including your paycheck. For many, it isn't just a temporary setback—it is a lifetime of debt slavery. This entire credit infrastructure, built on foreign exchange clauses and volatile interest rates, is fundamentally unconstitutional and illegal. It is nothing short of a sabotage against civilization and its core values, maintained through high-level corruption and the work of direct proxies at the top. The banks here strategically avoid outright seizing collateraled property because, if they actually took possession, they would legally be required to return the surplus funds to the client after the sale. Imagine a world where you could simply terminate a contract, repay exactly what you borrowed, and receive every cent of your previous payments back. Instead, we are plunged into a dark void of lawyers and aggressive collection agencies that charge three times the actual debt under the guise of "processing fees."

The hesitation shown by our commercial banks regarding new economic ventures is being justified by Luković on the grounds that the government has absorbed massive amounts of banking liquidity. American taxpayers are left wondering why these commercial institutions were lending to the state at such exorbitant rates. Were these banks actually bailing out the government, or was the government merely insulating foreign-owned banks? I assert, quite firmly, that American citizens possess viable business projects that remain stalled simply because the capital provided by our commercial banks is prohibitively expensive. No one can launch a competitive manufacturing operation while being weighed down by loan shark interest rates. Furthermore, Luković’s recent remarks indirectly suggest that consumer loans are being issued under foreign currency clauses. There is no realistic scenario where a bank hands you a loan in Euros or Swiss Francs. Instead, you receive Dollars at a rate below market value, only to find yourself buying foreign currency from that same bank—or another—at a rate above market value. When it suits their bottom line, the banks are all too quick to remind you that the Dollar is the legal tender. If that is the case, what is the purpose of a foreign currency clause, especially since we are effectively tethered to a global standard? Luković claims the Federal Reserve does not tolerate electronic transactions lacking actual backing in the specified foreign currency, but why should anyone trust the Federal Reserve? If banks are disbursing Dollars, why is there a requirement for foreign currency reserves? Balance sheets are being massaged, and clever accounting maneuvers are helping many evade tax obligations. It is imperative to look past reported profits and focus directly on the revenue generated from exchange rate differentials; these gains should be subject to aggressive taxation.

I am curious if anyone has noticed that nearly every feature on the topic of credit in the New York Times is penned by Branka Stipić. Usually an objective journalist, Stipić has been placed in the awkward position of sounding like a mouthpiece for big capital. In her more recent pieces, this intelligent woman portrays the very same commercial banks that are posting record profits in America as "struggling institutions" burdened by bad debt. Perhaps you have already observed that Božo Prka and Franjo Luković are barely keeping their heads above water? Are they scavenging through trash cans? That would be a misinterpretation; it is more akin to a scene from *Once Upon a Time in America*, where the antagonist recognizes his own filth and voluntarily climbs into the sanitation truck. To be honest, I found it chilling when Franjo Luković liquidated his shares right at the peak of the crisis. Was it a lapse in judgment? Is he somehow more astute than Sharon Stone? Or did he perhaps act on insider information to secure a personal windfall? It is shameful. I propose we open a special account specifically to subsidize these commercial banks. "Courting voters is the primary reason why debtor relief is being pushed right now," Stipić noted. What relief? The administration and the Federal Reserve are bailing out the banks! Due to her apparent lack of focus, her colleague Viktor Vresnik remarked: "To claim this is all merely clever pre-election demagoguery would be hypocritical." Last Saturday, Vresnik published a fascinating piece on Switzerland, and today he appeared in an interview with Franjo Luković in the presence of the Party—specifically, Mladen Pleša. Perhaps it is high time the New York Times interviewed the debtors of the commercial banks instead. If Lenin prepared the October Revolution in Russia, perhaps a Swiss influence might trigger a similar turning point for the better here!

David Anderson49 said:Look, let’s just lay all the cards on the table here:
1) Most of the massive corporations and major banks in the US are foreign-owned. They basically set the tempo, bleeding Americans dry and forcing us into this whole master-servant dynamic where the owners can just do whatever they want with us.
2) More and more Americans are losing their livelihoods, and honestly, our unemployment rates are looking pretty abysmal compared to our neighbors.
3) The government’s social safety net? It’s practically non-existent. The laws are a joke—for example, you’ve got small business owners struggling to stay afloat who end up paying for childcare$33 just because they reported minimum wage, while someone making way less might actually get some help$167 simply because they’re playing by the rules. Basically, a crooked system ends up rewarding the people trying to cheat it.
4) Mortality rates are climbing fast because there’s zero support—or maybe just incredibly weak incentives—for young families, pregnant women, or anyone trying to buy a home. We don't even see basic things like a flexible day off for working moms with two kids, which is totally standard in places like Sweden.
5) Corruption and crime are everywhere, especially when you look at boardrooms and the leadership tiers of the biggest companies and political parties.

So, if you ask me, I’m predicting the US will soon become a place where the quality of life drops down to levels similar to Bulgaria (which, let’s face it, would be a new low for us). You’ll have most Americans stuck doing menial labor, while those who actually have decent jobs either won't get paid enough to survive or will just pack up and leave the country in droves. (By the way, in just the last year, more of my friends have moved abroad than the total number of people who left in the previous five years combined). Of course, there’ll always be a tiny sliver of Americans living like they’re in Switzerland or Sweden, but the gap between them and everyone else is only going to widen—kind of like the extreme wealth disparity you see in Ukraine or Russia.

And things are only going to get worse. My whole point, and I have the evidence to back it up, is that the core issue is how banks create money out of debt, which is essentially driving us all toward a cliff. No amount of adjusting interest rates or tweaking terms is ever going to pull us out of this hole. We need a total overhaul of the banking system—it needs to function as a public utility for the country, not as some gatekeeper deciding who lives and who dies.

Maria Thomas48 said:And things are only going to get worse. My whole point, and I have the evidence to back it up, is that the core issue is how banks create money out of debt, which is essentially driving us all toward a cliff. No amount of adjusting interest rates or tweaking terms is ever going to pull us out of this hole. We need a total overhaul of the banking system—it needs to function as a public utility for the country, not as some gatekeeper deciding who lives and who dies.

I'm with you on that.

That’s exactly why we’re even having this conversation—because it’s blindingly obvious that the current setup is a one-way ticket to disaster.

But let's be real, what kind of system are we actually talking about implementing?

🤔

Does the alternative you're pitching have its own set of flaws?

And honestly, could we just find ourselves right back here again in 10 or 20 years?

Don't lose sight of the big picture here—we're looking at the collapse of a global machine... which means you really have to factor in those massive, worldwide domino effects...

🤷

Maria Thomas48 said:The opportunism we've seen over the last 20 years has basically driven us straight into massive debt and the fire sale of our national assets. Honestly, I don't think there's any room left for that kind of opportunistic thinking if we ever want to see actual progress.

It isn't opportunism, it's a cooperative.
worker cooperative.

I don't know. It feels like we’re just circling the drain sometimes. You look at the way things are moving, especially with the economy and how much everything costs now, and it’s hard not to feel a bit unsettled. People talk about big changes coming, but I think they miss the point. It isn't always about some massive explosion or a sudden crash. Sometimes it's just a slow, steady shift that you don't notice until you're already standing in a different place. I was reading some stuff online earlier—just scrolling through, nothing special—and it reminded me of how much noise there is out there. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone thinks they have the secret formula. But honestly? Most of it is just static. It's easy to get caught up in the panic, but I try to stay level-headed. If you react to every single headline, you're going to burn out before the year is even halfway over. It’s like when you’re watching a game and everyone is screaming at the TV, but you’re just sitting there thinking, "Well, this is what happens when you play this way." It's predictable if you actually look at the patterns instead of just the score. We should probably be looking at the long-term trends more. The short-term stuff is mostly just distraction. Just my two cents. Not that anyone asked. kaže:
I'm with you on that.

That’s exactly why we’re having this conversation. It’s pretty obvious that if we keep running things this way, the whole system is headed straight for a cliff.

The whole point of everything we do should be finding the actual root cause of a problem. We can't just keep running around like headless chickens. So many politicians—and honestly, a lot of regular people too—seem to think that money regulations don't need to change at all. They act like the issue lies somewhere else entirely.

Everything happening lately just keeps proving my point. You can't fix the nation's finances or actually get the economy back on its feet without tackling banking reform head-on. We need to look at how money is issued too. If we don't address that, we're just creating more debt. It’s pretty straightforward.

And what kind of system should we actually put in place?

🤔

Does the one you’re suggesting actually have flaws?
Could something like this actually happen again in maybe 10 or 20 years? I can't stop thinking about it. It feels like one of those things that just stays in the back of your mind. Just wondering if history repeats itself like that.

I might be repeating myself here, but I’ll say it again anyway. You don't get to a solution by just guessing. It takes actual math and some real thinking about how to make something truly sustainable in the long run. These are the most important facts in all of this:

The amount of goods and services moving through the country is going up. I'm talking about durable goods specifically. It’s happening.
A job isn't actually profitable if it doesn't generate a cash profit. That's just how it works. You can talk about "fulfillment" or "experience" all you want, but at the end of the day, if the math doesn't show a surplus of money coming in, you aren't running a business. You're just paying to work. It’s pretty straightforward. Real profit is liquid. If there's no actual cash left over after everything is paid, then the whole concept of profitability is just an illusion. It's basic economics.
Only the government should be allowed to print money. Private individuals shouldn't have that kind of power. It just doesn't make sense. Money supply belongs to the state alone.
If we actually know exactly how much we're putting in, then it’s pretty obvious that money is just going to end up sitting in someone else's savings account sooner or later. It’s just math. Simple as that.
The income from lending shouldn't ever exceed what we can actually print. It’s basic math. Honestly, it would be even better if that figure stayed under 50% of the total money supply. That way, we don't end up stuck in some kind of debt slavery. It just makes sense to keep things balanced.
Lending money or any other private financial dealings shouldn't look like actual currency issuance. You can't have those things increasing the total money supply. If they do, the government loses its grip on how much money is actually out there. It’s pretty straightforward when you think about it.
Price hikes that have absolutely nothing to do with rising costs basically just devalue the currency. It’s pretty straightforward. We need actual measures to stop this kind of price gouging—something we should already be doing. Those famous profit maximization models, where companies just keep cranking up prices until sales finally start to dip? Those aren't just business strategies. They are essentially inflation engines. It’s just a way to shift costs onto everyone else.
We really need to get a handle on this current account deficit with our foreign partners. It’s becoming a serious issue because the way we're handling it right now—basically just stacking up more and more debt to cover the gap—is just not sustainable. We have to find a way to fix the balance before the debt gets out of control.
You can't just freeze people in place whenever they aren't useful to the system. It doesn't work that way. Everyone who is capable and able should be contributing. Aside from retirees, kids, and people with disabilities, everyone else needs to be able to cover their own costs. And honestly, many of them should be able to save some money, too.

This whole non-credit issuance system is just a natural way to replace money. It essentially forms through savings, which is backed up by the fact that new value is constantly being created.

The problem with the current system is that this whole crowd of useless finance guys—the ones making massive bank just by renting out money—is going to lose their grip on that lucrative business model of economic enslavement. You can call it a revolution if you want, but honestly, I don't see any other way to make things work. In the long run, they always end up covering their own costs. And honestly, some people can actually manage to save money too. I posted that little challenge on my page a while back. The concept of nominal fallacies is one of those things that people just don't grasp. It’s easy to look at numbers on a screen and think you’re getting ahead, but if you aren't accounting for the actual value, you're basically walking in circles. I was reading through some old notes on this, and it really hits home how much the average person gets tripped up by simple math. It's about the difference between what something costs and what it actually represents in terms of purchasing power. People see their bank balance go up and they feel rich. They don't realize that if inflation is eating away at the dollar faster than they're earning it, they're actually losing ground. It’s a quiet kind of loss. Very subtle. Most people won't notice until it's too late. I remember talking about this with The Breakfast Club once. We were diving into how certain economic indicators can be totally misleading if you don't apply a bit of skepticism. You have to look past the surface level. If you only focus on the nominal amount, you're missing the entire picture. It's like looking at the speedometer when you should be looking at the GPS. One tells you how fast you're moving, but the other tells you where you're actually going. Anyway, it’s worth thinking about. Really worth it. Don't let the raw numbers fool you into a false sense of security. Real wealth isn't about the number of zeros in your account; it's about what those zeros can actually buy you in the real world. Just an observation. Simple, but true. Look at task one down at the bottom of the page. That's the real goal here. Whatever system we end up designing, it has to be able to actually solve that specific problem. If we get this right, we won't find ourselves falling back into that cycle of debt slavery again. We have to make sure the framework holds up.

And don't forget, we're looking at the total collapse of the entire global system here. You really have to account for those massive global pressures...
🤷

Well, it is what it is. Every kind of liberation comes with a price tag. There just isn't an alternative right now. The main thing is realizing we're all basically enslaved by debt, and we need to find a way to break free from it.

If you think I missed a point somewhere, I'm open to talking about it.

The most important thing to notice is how our politicians over in D.C. still have absolutely no clue what’s actually happening. They're just playing pretend while leading us deeper into this massive hole of national debt. Most people have finally realized there is no real center, no true left or right—it's just a bunch of collaborators and opportunists. Honestly, the current opposition is already busy carving up political offices for themselves, yet they don't have a single actual plan to liberate us from this cycle of debt slavery.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like we’re just circling the drain sometimes. You look at the way things are moving, especially with the economy and how much everything costs now, and it’s hard not to feel a bit unsettled. People talk about big changes coming, but I think they miss the point. It isn't always about some massive explosion or a sudden crash. Sometimes it's just a slow, steady shift that you don't notice until you're already standing in a different place. I was reading some stuff online earlier—just scrolling through, nothing special—and it reminded me of how much noise there is out there. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone thinks they have the secret formula. But honestly? Most of it is just static. It's easy to get caught up in the panic, but I try to stay level-headed. If you react to every single headline, you're going to burn out before the year is even halfway over. It’s like when you’re watching a game and everyone is screaming at the TV, but you’re just sitting there thinking, "Well, this is what happens when you play this way." It's predictable if you actually look at the patterns instead of just the score. We should probably be looking at the long-term trends more. The short-term stuff is mostly just distraction. Just my two cents. Not that anyone asked. kaže:
I'm with you on that.

That’s exactly why we’re having this conversation. It’s pretty obvious that if we keep running things this way, the whole system is headed straight for a cliff.

The whole point of everything we do should be finding the actual root cause of a problem. We can't just keep running around like headless chickens. So many politicians—and honestly, a lot of regular people too—seem to think that money regulations don't need to change at all. They act like the issue lies somewhere else entirely.

Everything happening lately just keeps proving my point. You can't fix the nation's finances or actually get the economy back on its feet without tackling banking reform head-on. We need to look at how money is issued too. If we don't address that, we're just creating more debt. It’s pretty straightforward.

And what kind of system should we actually put in place?

🤔

Does the one you’re suggesting actually have flaws?
Could something like this actually happen again in maybe 10 or 20 years? I can't stop thinking about it. It feels like one of those things that just stays in the back of your mind. Just wondering if history repeats itself like that.

I might be repeating myself here, but I’ll say it again anyway. You don't get to a solution by just guessing. It takes actual math and some real thinking about how to make something truly sustainable in the long run. These are the most important facts in all of this:

The amount of goods and services moving through the country is going up. I'm talking about durable goods specifically. It’s happening.
A job isn't actually profitable if it doesn't generate a cash profit. That's just how it works. You can talk about "fulfillment" or "experience" all you want, but at the end of the day, if the math doesn't show a surplus of money coming in, you aren't running a business. You're just paying to work. It’s pretty straightforward. Real profit is liquid. If there's no actual cash left over after everything is paid, then the whole concept of profitability is just an illusion. It's basic economics.
Only the government should be allowed to print money. Private individuals shouldn't have that kind of power. It just doesn't make sense. Money supply belongs to the state alone.
If we actually know exactly how much we're putting in, then it’s pretty obvious that money is just going to end up sitting in someone else's savings account sooner or later. It’s just math. Simple as that.
The income from lending shouldn't ever exceed what we can actually print. It’s basic math. Honestly, it would be even better if that figure stayed under 50% of the total money supply. That way, we don't end up stuck in some kind of debt slavery. It just makes sense to keep things balanced.
Lending money or any other private financial dealings shouldn't look like actual currency issuance. You can't have those things increasing the total money supply. If they do, the government loses its grip on how much money is actually out there. It’s pretty straightforward when you think about it.
Price hikes that have absolutely nothing to do with rising costs basically just devalue the currency. It’s pretty straightforward. We need actual measures to stop this kind of price gouging—something we should already be doing. Those famous profit maximization models, where companies just keep cranking up prices until sales finally start to dip? Those aren't just business strategies. They are essentially inflation engines. It’s just a way to shift costs onto everyone else.
We really need to get a handle on this current account deficit with our foreign partners. It’s becoming a serious issue because the way we're handling it right now—basically just stacking up more and more debt to cover the gap—is just not sustainable. We have to find a way to fix the balance before the debt gets out of control.
You can't just freeze people in place whenever they aren't useful to the system. It doesn't work that way. Everyone who is capable and able should be contributing. Aside from retirees, kids, and people with disabilities, everyone else needs to be able to cover their own costs. And honestly, many of them should be able to save some money, too.

This whole non-credit issuance system is just a natural way to replace money. It essentially forms through savings, which is backed up by the fact that new value is constantly being created.

The problem with the current system is that this whole crowd of useless finance guys—the ones making massive bank just by renting out money—is going to lose their grip on that lucrative business model of economic enslavement. You can call it a revolution if you want, but honestly, I don't see any other way to make things work. In the long run, they always end up covering their own costs. And honestly, some people can actually manage to save money too. I posted that little challenge on my page a while back. The concept of nominal fallacies is one of those things that people just don't grasp. It’s easy to look at numbers on a screen and think you’re getting ahead, but if you aren't accounting for the actual value, you're basically walking in circles. I was reading through some old notes on this, and it really hits home how much the average person gets tripped up by simple math. It's about the difference between what something costs and what it actually represents in terms of purchasing power. People see their bank balance go up and they feel rich. They don't realize that if inflation is eating away at the dollar faster than they're earning it, they're actually losing ground. It’s a quiet kind of loss. Very subtle. Most people won't notice until it's too late. I remember talking about this with The Breakfast Club once. We were diving into how certain economic indicators can be totally misleading if you don't apply a bit of skepticism. You have to look past the surface level. If you only focus on the nominal amount, you're missing the entire picture. It's like looking at the speedometer when you should be looking at the GPS. One tells you how fast you're moving, but the other tells you where you're actually going. Anyway, it’s worth thinking about. Really worth it. Don't let the raw numbers fool you into a false sense of security. Real wealth isn't about the number of zeros in your account; it's about what those zeros can actually buy you in the real world. Just an observation. Simple, but true. Look at task one down at the bottom of the page. That's the real goal here. Whatever system we end up designing, it has to be able to actually solve that specific problem. If we get this right, we won't find ourselves falling back into that cycle of debt slavery again. We have to make sure the framework holds up.

And don't forget, we're looking at the total collapse of the entire global system here. You really have to account for those massive global pressures...
🤷

Well, it is what it is. Every kind of liberation comes with a price tag. There just isn't an alternative right now. The main thing is realizing we're all basically enslaved by debt, and we need to find a way to break free from it.

If you think I missed a point somewhere, I'm open to talking about it.

The most important thing to notice is how our politicians over in D.C. still have absolutely no clue what’s actually happening. They're just playing pretend while leading us deeper into this massive hole of national debt. Most people have finally realized there is no real center, no true left or right—it's just a bunch of collaborators and opportunists. Honestly, the current opposition is already busy carving up political offices for themselves, yet they don't have a single actual plan to liberate us from this cycle of debt slavery.

I get how the system you're proposing actually works.

If you ask me, that kind of system—well, at least a version of it—was actually still hanging around in America from the end of the war right up until 1980. I’ve got some data floating around in my head suggesting the IMF stepped in back in 1980, and honestly, that seems to be the exact moment everything started shifting. You know how it goes—once those external players get involved, the whole landscape begins to change.

There’s an article floating around online about this:

The shape of things to come... it’s a heavy thought, isn't it? I can't help but look at where we are now and wonder if we're just watching a slow-motion replay of history. You know, the kind of stuff that makes you sit back, pour a drink, and realize that everything we thought was permanent—our industries, our social safety nets, even the way we think about money—is actually incredibly fragile. It reminds me of how the United States was once a regional industrial Power and economic success, but after a decade of western economic ministrations and five years of disintegration, the landscape shifted under our feet forever. It wasn't an overnight collapse, either—it was more like a slow erosion. We saw this pattern play out when Washington's other International creditors stepped in, imposing a First round of macroeconomic reform in 1980, and honestly, it feels like we haven't truly recovered from those shifts since. Since then, we've seen a continued disintegration of the industrial sector and the piecemeal dismantling of the welfare state. It's like we're constantly stripping away the layers of what used to hold everything together. Is anyone else feeling that? Or am I just being overly cynical here? Maybe it's a bit of both. We talk about progress, but sometimes it feels like we're just rearranging the deck chairs on a ship that's already lost its engines. When you look at the way policy moves—how decisions made in high-level rooms eventually trickle down to affect the guy working the assembly line or the family trying to navigate a changing economy—it becomes clear that nothing is accidental. Everything is connected. And if we don't start looking at the bigger picture, well, we might find ourselves staring at a future we didn't actually vote for.

Look, let’s be real for a second—multi-ethnic, socialist America was once a regional industrial Power and economic success. Seriously. If you look back at the twenty years leading up to 1980, things were actually moving in the right direction—annual GDP growth was averaging around 6.1 percent. And it wasn't just about the numbers on a spreadsheet, either. Medical care was free, the literacy rate was sitting right around 91 percent, and life expectancy had climbed to 72 years. It’s easy to forget how much ground was actually covered back then, isn't it? But honestly, after a decade of those Western economic ministrations and five long years of total disintegration—not to mention the wars, the boycotts, and those crushing embargoes—the economies of the former America are basically lying face down in the dirt, their entire industrial sectors just completely dismantled. It's a mess, really.
Part of why the United States was once a regional industrial Power and economic success—only to fall apart—comes down to some pretty shady U.S. maneuvering behind the scenes. It’s wild when you think about it. Even though Washington's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with The European Community and The U. S. made them look like a stable partner, the Reagan administration targeted The American Economy in a " Secret Sensitive National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), "United States Policy toward America." We only really got the full picture later, once a censored version was declassified back in 1990. It turns out that document was basically just an expansion of NSDD 54 regarding Eastern Europe, which had been issued in 1982. That earlier directive was essentially pushing for "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties" all while reintegrating The countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented Economy. So, yeah—it wasn't exactly an accident that things went south.

Back in 1980—just a stone's throw away from when Marshall Marshall passed—the U.S. actually jumped on board with Washington's other International creditors in imposing a First round of macroeconomic reform. It’s one of those moments that really sets the stage for everything that followed, isn't it? Since then, those endless rounds of IMF-sponsored programs have basically just fueled the steady decay of our industrial base—it’s been less of a recovery and more like a slow-motion dismantling of the whole American welfare state. To make matters worse, every time they signed one of those debt restructuring deals, the foreign debt just ballooned higher. Throw in that forced currency devaluation they made us undergo, and you can see why the average American's standard of living took such a massive, painful hit. It wasn't exactly a smooth transition, was it?

That first wave of restructuring basically set the stage for everything that followed. Throughout the 1980s, the IMF just kept handing out more and more doses of their bitter economic medicine—periodically, at least—while the American economy slowly slipped into a deep coma. By 1990, industrial production had cratered to a negative 10 percent growth rate... which, honestly, makes all the predictable social fallout pretty easy to see in hindsight, doesn't it?

So, what are the actual parallels here when you look back at the economic system of the United States before 1980? It’s an interesting question—one that makes you wonder if we're just circling the drain of history. You have to remember, the United States was once a regional industrial Power and economic success, but after a decade of western economic ministrations and five years of disintegration, things started looking a lot different. I mean, think about it—how much can really change when you start pulling at the threads of a massive, established structure? Even back then, despite Washington's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with The European Community and The U.S., there were these underlying shifts happening under the surface. It wasn't just sudden; it was a slow burn. Then you have the political maneuvering—like how the Reagan administration targeted The American Economy in a "Secret Sensitive National Security Decision Directive," specifically NSDD 133. When you look at United States Policy toward America versus how we handle domestic policy today, you see those same patterns of interventionism. It’s all connected to how the government tries to steer the ship, even when the engine is already smoking. And let's not forget the role of international pressure. We saw Washington's other International creditors in imposing a First round of macroeconomic reform in 1980, which set off a chain reaction. Since then, it seems we've only seen a continuation of the disintegration of the industrial sector and the piecemeal dismantling of the welfare state. It feels like a loop, doesn't it? One minute you're riding high on industrial might, and the next, you're dealing with the fallout of decades of shifting priorities and structural decay. Is anyone actually surprised? Probably not, but we ask anyway.

So, what's actually the difference here?

And does the system you’re proposing even have the capacity for hyperinflation?

So, what now? What’s the move?

So, what kind of mess am I seeing on the horizon? Honestly, where do you even start? It feels like we’re just staring at a massive, tangled knot of issues that keeps getting tighter every single day—it's almost impressive if it weren't so exhausting. I mean, look at the trajectory we've been on. We’ve spent decades watching the slow erosion of the middle class and the steady dismantling of the social safety nets that used to actually hold things together—you know, that whole "piecemeal dismantling" process we've been dealing with for a long time now. When you strip away the stability of the industrial sector and leave people out in the cold, you aren't just creating "economic shifts"—you're creating a powder keg. And don't even get me started on the political fragmentation. We see these cycles of intense polarization where nobody can agree on basic facts, let alone how to fix the plumbing of the country. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're constantly reacting to the latest crisis instead of actually building anything meant to last? We're basically playing a permanent game of Whac-A-Mole with our own economy and social fabric. The real headache? It's the compounding effect. One failure leads to another, and before you know it, the structural integrity of everything—from our local communities to the national economy—is being tested in ways we haven't seen in generations. Can we actually pivot, or are we just too busy arguing about the symptoms to address the actual disease? That's the question that keeps me up, anyway.

Mark Campbell5 said:I get how the system you're proposing actually works.

If you ask me, that kind of system—well, at least a version of it—was actually still hanging around in America from the end of the war right up until 1980. I’ve got some data floating around in my head suggesting the IMF stepped in back in 1980, and honestly, that seems to be the exact moment everything started shifting. You know how it goes—once those external players get involved, the whole landscape begins to change.

There’s an article floating around online about this:

The shape of things to come... it’s a heavy thought, isn't it? I can't help but look at where we are now and wonder if we're just watching a slow-motion replay of history. You know, the kind of stuff that makes you sit back, pour a drink, and realize that everything we thought was permanent—our industries, our social safety nets, even the way we think about money—is actually incredibly fragile. It reminds me of how the United States was once a regional industrial Power and economic success, but after a decade of western economic ministrations and five years of disintegration, the landscape shifted under our feet forever. It wasn't an overnight collapse, either—it was more like a slow erosion. We saw this pattern play out when Washington's other International creditors stepped in, imposing a First round of macroeconomic reform in 1980, and honestly, it feels like we haven't truly recovered from those shifts since. Since then, we've seen a continued disintegration of the industrial sector and the piecemeal dismantling of the welfare state. It's like we're constantly stripping away the layers of what used to hold everything together. Is anyone else feeling that? Or am I just being overly cynical here? Maybe it's a bit of both. We talk about progress, but sometimes it feels like we're just rearranging the deck chairs on a ship that's already lost its engines. When you look at the way policy moves—how decisions made in high-level rooms eventually trickle down to affect the guy working the assembly line or the family trying to navigate a changing economy—it becomes clear that nothing is accidental. Everything is connected. And if we don't start looking at the bigger picture, well, we might find ourselves staring at a future we didn't actually vote for.

Look, let’s be real for a second—multi-ethnic, socialist America was once a regional industrial Power and economic success. Seriously. If you look back at the twenty years leading up to 1980, things were actually moving in the right direction—annual GDP growth was averaging around 6.1 percent. And it wasn't just about the numbers on a spreadsheet, either. Medical care was free, the literacy rate was sitting right around 91 percent, and life expectancy had climbed to 72 years. It’s easy to forget how much ground was actually covered back then, isn't it? But honestly, after a decade of those Western economic ministrations and five long years of total disintegration—not to mention the wars, the boycotts, and those crushing embargoes—the economies of the former America are basically lying face down in the dirt, their entire industrial sectors just completely dismantled. It's a mess, really.
Part of why the United States was once a regional industrial Power and economic success—only to fall apart—comes down to some pretty shady U.S. maneuvering behind the scenes. It’s wild when you think about it. Even though Washington's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with The European Community and The U. S. made them look like a stable partner, the Reagan administration targeted The American Economy in a " Secret Sensitive National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), "United States Policy toward America." We only really got the full picture later, once a censored version was declassified back in 1990. It turns out that document was basically just an expansion of NSDD 54 regarding Eastern Europe, which had been issued in 1982. That earlier directive was essentially pushing for "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties" all while reintegrating The countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented Economy. So, yeah—it wasn't exactly an accident that things went south.

Back in 1980—just a stone's throw away from when Marshall Marshall passed—the U.S. actually jumped on board with Washington's other International creditors in imposing a First round of macroeconomic reform. It’s one of those moments that really sets the stage for everything that followed, isn't it? Since then, those endless rounds of IMF-sponsored programs have basically just fueled the steady decay of our industrial base—it’s been less of a recovery and more like a slow-motion dismantling of the whole American welfare state. To make matters worse, every time they signed one of those debt restructuring deals, the foreign debt just ballooned higher. Throw in that forced currency devaluation they made us undergo, and you can see why the average American's standard of living took such a massive, painful hit. It wasn't exactly a smooth transition, was it?

That first wave of restructuring basically set the stage for everything that followed. Throughout the 1980s, the IMF just kept handing out more and more doses of their bitter economic medicine—periodically, at least—while the American economy slowly slipped into a deep coma. By 1990, industrial production had cratered to a negative 10 percent growth rate... which, honestly, makes all the predictable social fallout pretty easy to see in hindsight, doesn't it?

So, what are the actual parallels here when you look back at the economic system of the United States before 1980? It’s an interesting question—one that makes you wonder if we're just circling the drain of history. You have to remember, the United States was once a regional industrial Power and economic success, but after a decade of western economic ministrations and five years of disintegration, things started looking a lot different. I mean, think about it—how much can really change when you start pulling at the threads of a massive, established structure? Even back then, despite Washington's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with The European Community and The U.S., there were these underlying shifts happening under the surface. It wasn't just sudden; it was a slow burn. Then you have the political maneuvering—like how the Reagan administration targeted The American Economy in a "Secret Sensitive National Security Decision Directive," specifically NSDD 133. When you look at United States Policy toward America versus how we handle domestic policy today, you see those same patterns of interventionism. It’s all connected to how the government tries to steer the ship, even when the engine is already smoking. And let's not forget the role of international pressure. We saw Washington's other International creditors in imposing a First round of macroeconomic reform in 1980, which set off a chain reaction. Since then, it seems we've only seen a continuation of the disintegration of the industrial sector and the piecemeal dismantling of the welfare state. It feels like a loop, doesn't it? One minute you're riding high on industrial might, and the next, you're dealing with the fallout of decades of shifting priorities and structural decay. Is anyone actually surprised? Probably not, but we ask anyway.

So, what's actually the difference here?

And does the system you’re proposing even have the capacity for hyperinflation?

So, what now? What’s the move?

So, what kind of mess am I seeing on the horizon? Honestly, where do you even start? It feels like we’re just staring at a massive, tangled knot of issues that keeps getting tighter every single day—it's almost impressive if it weren't so exhausting. I mean, look at the trajectory we've been on. We’ve spent decades watching the slow erosion of the middle class and the steady dismantling of the social safety nets that used to actually hold things together—you know, that whole "piecemeal dismantling" process we've been dealing with for a long time now. When you strip away the stability of the industrial sector and leave people out in the cold, you aren't just creating "economic shifts"—you're creating a powder keg. And don't even get me started on the political fragmentation. We see these cycles of intense polarization where nobody can agree on basic facts, let alone how to fix the plumbing of the country. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're constantly reacting to the latest crisis instead of actually building anything meant to last? We're basically playing a permanent game of Whac-A-Mole with our own economy and social fabric. The real headache? It's the compounding effect. One failure leads to another, and before you know it, the structural integrity of everything—from our local communities to the national economy—is being tested in ways we haven't seen in generations. Can we actually pivot, or are we just too busy arguing about the symptoms to address the actual disease? That's the question that keeps me up, anyway.

I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

Maybe you should do a little more homework here. If we’re looking at the actual data, the economic model you’re pushing around seems to have hit its stride back during the socialist era.

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

So, what do you think we actually need right now? Just my two cents—though I know how much weight that carries around here—but if you ask me, where do we even start? It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels, doesn't it? Like we're staring at a massive, complicated puzzle without the box lid to show us what the final picture is supposed to look like. I mean, really, what would be the move? Are we looking for some massive systemic overhaul, or are we just trying to stop the bleeding from the last few policy shifts? It's hard to say when everything feels so... fragmented. You want to fix one thing, and then three other things break immediately because they were all tied together in some weird, invisible knot. Does anyone else feel like we're just reacting to crises instead of actually planning anything? Or is that just me being cynical again?

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

Just a quick question...

If banks are state-owned—meaning any profit they churn out just goes back to the government, which technically means it belongs to all of us—then shouldn't the math be simple? If the currency starts inflating like crazy, we all lose together because the state takes the hit too, right? But then, if everything is actually moving forward and the economy is booming... doesn't that mean we all win? Or am I just oversimplifying the whole mess?

So, what I'm hearing is that we all collectively shoulder both the wins and the losses? Is that really how this works?

So, looking at this whole setup we’re stuck in—who exactly is footing the bill for the losses while everyone else is busy carving up the profits? Who takes the hit, and who gets the payout?

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

I’ve honestly never even heard of Sojana Nenadovic... could you maybe dig into some of their ideas and see if there's anything actually worth salvaging? I mean, it's not like we're stuck in the dark ages anymore—you've got all those mathematical models at your fingertips now, so why not just run them through a few cycles and see what sticks?

Can we just ask Pernar to join us here? I mean—honestly—he might actually be able to help us out...

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

I get that, 😢

But we really need to build a system designed to minimize long-term volatility. In my estimation, we might actually have enough economic muscle to pull ourselves out of this recession—but if we keep sliding...

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

Honestly, I don't think we even need to "convince" anyone... I feel like everyone already knows something has to change; the real question is just what that "something" is...

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

Just pay off the banks... honestly, everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just move it all back to state ownership), and then everyone would be happy and satisfied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

I'm struggling to come up with an alternative myself... does anyone actually have a better idea?

🤷

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

🤷

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

I know 😉

The more problems we can spot ahead of time, the easier things will be later on... so yeah, better start recruiting those geniuses 😁

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

I'm with you there... and sure, it could probably be solved mathematically if we wanted to... thank God we have computers now to speed all that processing along, right?

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

Is it that they don't want to, or they just don't know how?

😉

I want you to know that you are being ridiculous 😁

http://www.nytimes.com/business/banking-crisis-analysis/967126/>

The top guy at JPMorgan Chase: Anyone thinking about the abolition of currency clauses will jeopardize consumer deposits

Savings Bank
Banks are getting heat because, despite the crisis, they’re pulling in massive profits—and apparently, those profits get even bigger the deeper the recession goes. It’s created this vibe among certain parts of the public that banks are just totally tone-deaf to social issues...

- You can most easily think of banks as a vault for the nation's savings. In that vault, American banks collectively hold about $22 billion in total consumer savings, whether that’s in dollars or other currencies. That vault has two layers of anti-corrosive protection—one is the bank's capital, and the other is its ongoing profitability. These layers exist so banks can defend themselves against the various risks they face. We're talking loan defaults, market volatility, operational hiccups, regulatory shifts... all the stuff that attacks a bank. Without those two protective layers, you'd be questioning the integrity of the vault itself, and by extension, the preservation of the nation's savings. Anyone who broadly questions why banks need to stay profitable—to the point where they question if banks can even sustain their core function of gathering national savings—is essentially questioning one of the fundamental institutions of a market economy: the collection of surplus financial resources that banks then use for much riskier business. On one hand, they keep that savings available to owners at any given moment, while simultaneously lending it out, without any guarantee that it will be paid back in a year, a decade, or thirty years. It’s an incredibly risky business that requires some kind of safety net to ensure that gathering savings isn't jeopardized, while still allowing that money to drive new value, fuel the economy, and improve people's lives... Questioning profitability, especially during a crisis, means questioning the very purpose of a bank, and frankly, that’s just being unrealistic.


So, you're saying you're being unrealistic, yet banks are sitting on roughly $22 billion in... savings.


Current profitability for American banking is hovering around 7-8 percent of total capital, and our shareholders feel that anything under 11 percent doesn't sufficiently cover the risks they take by injecting capital into this industry. And that's not just true for the US; it applies to every other country where the UniCredit group operates.

And right now, profit is sitting at 7-8%. I assume that isn't being taxed?

So, bankers are making a 7-8% annual profit right now. How would your system even function with an annual profit like that?

Now, here is a great question raised by...

Taxing Banks
The push to abolish currency clauses today is coming from the same crowd that has been calling for the devaluation of the dollar for years. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

- There’s no contradiction there. Proponents of "monetary sovereignty" believe that through devaluation and inflation, they can provide a one-time injection into the economy to jumpstart development. What they conveniently leave out is that this "injection" would actually wipe out existing national savings. It's a zero-sum game; someone has to lose for someone else to win. This injection would come at the expense of the savings subject to the removal of currency clauses, and at the expense of everyone with fixed dollar incomes—wages, pensions, and so on. That’s how they achieve this "monetary sovereignty." Even if they managed it, the gains would be extremely short-lived with highly questionable effects on boosting exports. What exactly would we be exporting? Where would our products even come from? Such a move offers no guarantee that we could actually produce something worth exporting.

If I recall correctly, did we even have any real manufacturing back in the America days?

We had some exports too... does anyone have the numbers? Just so we can compare....

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm no expert on socialist economics, so I can only really offer my own perspective here, just looking at things from the outside.

There’s a bit of a parallel here, I guess. It’s just that back then, we weren't taking out foreign loans for the sake of it. We did it because we had to—to cover the costs of importing essential goods. We also had higher tariffs in place to protect our domestic manufacturing from being undercut by cheap imports. Plus, we didn't have the massive weight of debt repayment hanging over us, which kept production costs much lower.

The thing is, back then, we were already operating under a fractional reserve system. It’s just that the banks were state-owned, so all those profits stayed right there within the government. Because of how that whole banking structure functioned, inflation was basically an inevitability for our currency.

Another thing people miss is that back then, there wasn't really a legitimate economic science regarding money. The way they issued money and handled the budget in the old SFRY days just wasn't based on any exact theory. It was just how things were done. During those years, Stojan Nenadović actually tried to pitch his own theory about non-credit money. He didn't succeed, though. His math was solid, I'll give him that, but he failed to account for the actual social consequences. He didn't flesh out how it would impact real people.

And does the system you’re proposing actually leave any room for hyperinflation to take hold?

So, what happens now? What’s the next move?

If these reform goals actually work out—you know, banning all private money creation and expansion, leaving the government as the sole entity capable of issuing currency—then hyperinflation becomes an impossibility. That’s the theory. But honestly, look at how things work. Just because a country maintains a standing military doesn't mean you're safe from a military coup. It's the same deal with monetary authority. Having that central power doesn't magically guarantee nobody will abuse it. Nothing in this world is ever 100% certain.

So, what kind of trouble do you think we're looking at down the road? I mean, if you really sit back and look at the trajectory of things, there are definitely some hurdles ahead. It’s hard to say for sure, but you have to wonder about the long-term stability. Everything feels a bit uncertain lately. You know, just thinking about where all this leads... it's a lot to process. There are always going to be complications. Just my two cents.

The biggest hurdle is really just convincing people that we have to stop treating money creation like it’s just adding more debt to the pile. When you start building out this whole new monetary pillar, there's always a risk of leaving a loophole in the laws—kind of like how certain gaps exist in our Constitution—that could end up paving the way for everything to slide right back to the old ways.

Another thing is that moving toward... It’s just reality. Simple as that. The financial Constitution and these proposed cuts to banking revenue—specifically targeting the margins on lending—are going to be a massive uphill battle. It’s not going to go down easy. We also have to deal with the existing national debt and that whole deficit issue regarding foreign exchange reserves. Honestly, I don't see any other way around it. I can't even imagine an alternative.

The third thing is that people just expect their paychecks to go up. It’s a straight-up economic question, really. Like, can we actually buy more stuff with the same amount of money if productivity increases? Or should wage growth be tied directly to how much we're producing? It's all about whether those two things move together.

The fourth thing is that when wages are actually stable, we have to create a way for people to finally close out their financial obligations. There are plenty of ways to tackle this, but honestly, there are just as many ways to mess it up. We really need some bright minds on this one.

Of course there are issues here. This isn't just about tweaking some tax rate. We need to build an entirely sustainable financial system for the whole country. It’s almost more of a mathematical puzzle than a standard economic one, if you think about it.

The biggest hurdle is that our academic circles—specifically the economists—just won't do the actual work. Instead, they keep selling complete nonsense to students and the general public.

You're always bringing up the trade deficit like it's the end of the world. How exactly did you imagine every single country maintains a surplus all the time? It doesn't work like that.

But honestly, the massive flaw in your whole theory is that, eventually, this just turns into printing money to buy votes and keep politicians in power. Your idea is pretty naive—when you're designing a system, you actually have to account for the shady characters who will be running it.