Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

silentmaker78 said: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.

This whole issue regarding international exchange is being swept under the rug in the name of free trade. I see a massive problem here, but maybe I'm missing something? You tell me. A permanent deficit just isn't sustainable if we keep trying to fund it by piling on more debt. We have to find another way to handle this. Something else has to be the answer.

The biggest issue with your idea is that, at the end of the day, it just turns into printing money to buy votes and stay in power. It’s a naive way to look at things. When you're actually building a system, you have to account for how people behave. You can't ignore the nature of the players involved.

People keep blurring the lines between political leaders and monetary authority. It’s a mistake. Monetary power needs to be independent. It shouldn't be dancing to whatever tune some politician decides to play. Does anyone honestly think politicians are calling the shots at the Federal Reserve right now? No. They aren't. So why would anyone assume that’s going to change down the road? It just doesn't make sense.

silentmaker78 said: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.

What if we just made it an open system?

I mean, everyone would have access to all the data...

Then anyone could anonymously and easily verify whether the government is printing cash just to buy off voters or not.

To me, that feels like one of the potential ways out of this mess...

They'd probably try to make sure that's impossible...

🤔

Or maybe they'll make it happen?

🙂

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

I don't know. Maybe. It feels like things just happen sometimes without much reason behind them. I was looking at some data earlier. Just thinking about how systems work. You see these patterns and you think you understand, but then the pattern breaks. It's like when you're driving down a highway in Ohio and suddenly the road just shifts. You weren't expecting it. Everything stays pretty level for me though. I try to stay level. People get so worked up about everything. It's unnecessary. I just observe. That's all. The user says:
I just wanted you to know who you really are. not serious 😁

The news about Franjo Luković’s recent comments is really something else. It’s one of those situations where you read the headlines and think you know what happened, but then you dig into the actual details and realize how much more complex the whole thing is. There’s a lot of noise out there, honestly. People jumping to conclusions before the facts are even fully laid out. It feels like we see this pattern all the time lately. Someone makes a statement, the media picks it up, and suddenly everyone is arguing about things that weren't even part of the original conversation. It's exhausting if you ask me. I try to stay level-headed about these things. You have to look at the context. If you don't look at the context, you're just reacting to a snapshot instead of the whole movie. I was thinking about this earlier while looking at some property listings on Zillow. It’s funny how everything is connected. Whether it's political discourse or just trying to figure out the market value of a house in a suburb outside of Chicago, it all comes down to how much information you actually have versus how much people claim to know. Most people just want a quick answer. They don't want to sit through the nuance. But the nuance is where the truth usually lives. Anyway, it's a strange time to be following the news. Everything is so loud. I prefer to just sit back, process it, and wait for the dust to settle. It's better that way. Makes it easier to stay sane.

The big boss over at Zillow just dropped a truth bomb. He’s basically saying that if anyone tries to get rid of currency clauses on loans, they’re going to end up putting everyone's savings at risk. It's a heavy thought. People think changing how these loans work is just about adjusting rates, but he's making the point that it could actually destabilize the whole system for regular depositors. Everything is connected. If you mess with one side of the ledger, the other side feels the hit. It's all very interconnected. One move here, and suddenly people aren't sure about their money in the bank. Simple as that.

Ally Bank.
People keep pointing fingers at banks lately. The whole argument is that even when everything is going downhill and the economy hits a wall, these big institutions just keep raking in massive profits. It’s like the deeper the crisis gets, the more they seem to pull in. Because of that, you get this huge segment of the public feeling like banks are just totally out of touch with what people are actually going through. They come off as being completely indifferent to the social impact of everything.

I think the easiest way to look at banks is to view them as a massive vault for the nation's savings. If you add up everything held by all the major US banks combined, you’re looking at roughly... Twenty billion dollars. That’s the amount we’re looking at when you factor in all the personal savings sitting out there in the US right now. It’s a massive number. Just sits there. People think their money is just tucked away safely, but when you look at the scale of it, it’s actually pretty staggering how much capital is just resting in accounts. I was thinking about this earlier while looking at some market data. It really makes you wonder about the actual impact that kind of liquidity has on the broader economy. It's just a huge sum of money. Totaling twenty billion. It’s hard to wrap your head around.Whether we’re talking dollars or foreign currency, it doesn't really matter. Think of an institution like Ally Bank as having two layers of anti-corrosion coating. One layer 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. You have credit defaults, market fluctuations, operational hiccups, regulatory shifts... basically everything that tries to wear a bank down. Without those two protective layers, the entire structure is at risk, and along with it, the stability of the nation's savings. If someone starts questioning why banks need to be profitable—to the point where you're doubting their ability to actually hold onto people's money—then they are essentially attacking one of the most fundamental pillars of a market economy. That pillar is the gathering of excess financial resources, which banks then use to engage in much more volatile business. On one hand, they keep those savings available for the owners at any given moment, but on the other, they issue them out as loans without any absolute guarantee that they'll be paid back in a year, ten years, or thirty years. It's a high-stakes game. There has to be some kind of buffer in place to ensure that collecting savings remains viable while simultaneously putting that money to work to create new value, drive the economy, and improve lives. Questioning profitability, especially during a crisis, is just questioning the very purpose of a bank. And honestly, it’s just not being taken seriously. It's all pretty ridiculous.

He made a really good point there, I guess. It sounded nice. But he completely skipped over the part about what that kind of banking actually does to everyone else.

The current profitability levels for American banking are sitting right around the 7 to 8 percent mark. When you look at the total capital, our shareholders pretty much insist that anything under 11 percent just doesn't cut it. They feel it fails to cover the actual risks they take on when they put their money into this industry. And honestly, it isn't just an American thing either. This applies to every single country where JPMorgan Chase operates.

Right now the profit is sitting at around 7-8%. I’m assuming there isn't any tax due on that?

So, banks are sitting on 7-8% annual profits right now. That’s just how it is. I wonder how a system like mine would actually handle those kinds of numbers. It’s an interesting thought. How would it function with that level of profit? Just something to think about.

It’s pretty wild when you think about it. These big banks just sit on all our savings and then try to take an 8% bite out of us every single year.

The system we’re discussing just can't hold up. Not with those kinds of profit margins on that much capital. It's mathematically impossible. I mean, if there's an economist out there who can actually prove me wrong, please, go ahead. I'm listening.

A bank's profit can really only sit at about 2.5 to 3% on its own equity, or maybe 1.5% on customer deposits. I just don't see how a real economy could actually generate enough new value to sustain those kinds of margins. Even if they somehow pulled it off, massive growth wouldn't lead to sustainable development—it would just result in total destruction.

Bank Taxation
The same group of people pushing to scrap currency clauses today are the ones who have been calling for a devaluation of the dollar for years. Isn't there a contradiction there?

There isn't a contradiction. Those preaching "monetary sovereignty" think they can give the economy a one-time shot in the arm through devaluation and inflation to jumpstart growth. But they conveniently leave out the part where that injection basically wipes out existing national savings. It’s a zero-sum game; someone wins, someone else loses. That boost would essentially come at the expense of anyone holding savings without protection and everyone living on fixed incomes—wages, pensions, all of it. That's how they'd achieve this "sovereignty." Even if we had it, any profit would be incredibly short-lived and the effect on boosting exports would be highly questionable. What would we even export? Where is our manufacturing base? A move like that doesn't guarantee we'll actually produce anything worth sending abroad.

If I recall correctly, did we even have much manufacturing back in the old days?

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

The truth is, devaluing the currency doesn't lead anywhere. It's just empty talk from exporters. There are two ways to kill free trade in a country running a balance of payments deficit with foreign nations (http://sites.google.com/site/financi...bodna-trgovina). The first is high interest rates paired with a fixed exchange rate, and the second is crashing the exchange rate. An economics professor explained this quite clearly in his lecture materials for students ( You'll find data there regarding exports leading up to 1994. Definitely worth a read.

Anyway, scrapping the currency clause seems more than likely. If we don't get our act together, we'll soon be calling the IMF for help. And their first move will be devaluing the dollar to protect foreign exchange reserves. These moves won't help anyone, and the standard of living will just drop even further—you'll see it most in the shrinking wages and people being forced to deregister their cars.

Maria Thomas48 said:This whole issue regarding international exchange is being swept under the rug in the name of free trade. I see a massive problem here, but maybe I'm missing something? You tell me. A permanent deficit just isn't sustainable if we keep trying to fund it by piling on more debt. We have to find another way to handle this. Something else has to be the answer.

The biggest issue with your idea is that, at the end of the day, it just turns into printing money to buy votes and stay in power. It’s a naive way to look at things. When you're actually building a system, you have to account for how people behave. You can't ignore the nature of the players involved.

People keep blurring the lines between political leaders and monetary authority. It’s a mistake. Monetary power needs to be independent. It shouldn't be dancing to whatever tune some politician decides to play. Does anyone honestly think politicians are calling the shots at the Federal Reserve right now? No. They aren't. So why would anyone assume that’s going to change down the road? It just doesn't make sense.

So, what exactly are they supposed to do then? Like, how do you even wrap your head around the idea that every single country just sits there with a massive surplus? Seriously, WTF?

Maria Thomas48 said:This whole issue regarding international exchange is being swept under the rug in the name of free trade. I see a massive problem here, but maybe I'm missing something? You tell me. A permanent deficit just isn't sustainable if we keep trying to fund it by piling on more debt. We have to find another way to handle this. Something else has to be the answer.

The biggest issue with your idea is that, at the end of the day, it just turns into printing money to buy votes and stay in power. It’s a naive way to look at things. When you're actually building a system, you have to account for how people behave. You can't ignore the nature of the players involved.

People keep blurring the lines between political leaders and monetary authority. It’s a mistake. Monetary power needs to be independent. It shouldn't be dancing to whatever tune some politician decides to play. Does anyone honestly think politicians are calling the shots at the Federal Reserve right now? No. They aren't. So why would anyone assume that’s going to change down the road? It just doesn't make sense.

Look, this is exactly what happens when you get your education from those quasi-documentaries—especially when you don't really know much about the subject to begin with. And honestly? You're asking if the Federal Reserve is completely in private hands? Like, do central banks have zero connection to politicians? That's a stretch.

Look, I’m saying this again—and I know, I know, it sounds incredibly naive—but that's just what happens when you let all those so-called "experts" and pseudo-scientists blindside you. It's easy to get swept up in the hype, really.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

Not me either... just because they don't have them doesn't mean good solutions don't exist. 😉

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

Marxism theory suggests that during those early stages, capitalism actually does a pretty decent job of driving growth—mostly by pumping massive amounts of capital into new tech and better ways of getting things done. The idea was that everyone would end up winning, right? But then, according to him, as the system matures, the whole thing shifts. The capitalists start grabbing an ever-larger slice of the economic pie, while the actual laborers are left fighting over the crumbs. It’s a bit of a downward spiral for the working class, isn't it?

If you look at how things play out over time—especially when the gears start grinding like this—Marxist theory suggests a pretty predictable, if not slightly chaotic, trajectory. First off, he argued that capitalist economies are essentially doomed to a cycle of increasingly violent swings between massive booms and total busts. It’s like a roller coaster that just keeps getting steeper, right? Second, he believed this whole ongoing process would inevitably widen the gap—making the capitalists wealthier and the working class even more broke—until, eventually, the workers hit their breaking point. The idea was that they’d revolt, seize the means of production, and trigger a shift into Socialism. Of course, in his view, Socialism wasn't the finish line either; it was just a stepping stone on the way to Communism.



At least try reading the basics. So, I was just falling down a rabbit hole looking at the life and work of Karl Marx—you know, the guy whose name is basically synonymous with half the political arguments we have today—and it really makes you stop and think. It’s wild how much his theories still ripple through everything we do, even if people only use his name as a shorthand for something they hate. When you dig into Marxism theory, he wasn't just some angry guy shouting about revolution; he actually argued that capitalism would do a pretty decent job in its early stages. His whole point was that it drives growth by pouring massive amounts of Capital into new tech and better ways of producing things. He saw it as this engine for progress before the inevitable friction sets in. It's a bit of a nuanced take, isn't it? Most people want to paint him as purely anti-growth, but he saw the mechanics of it—the way innovation and investment drive the machine forward initially. It’s funny, though—how much the world has changed since his time, yet we're still chewing on these same ideas. You look at the shifts in global power, from the old dynamics of the USSR to the rise of China, and you realize the core tensions he identified haven't exactly vanished; they've just evolved into different shapes. Whether you're talking about the legacy of the Cold War transition or the way modern economies react to shifts in places like Venezuela or the influence of OPEC, those underlying struggles between labor, capital, and the state are always lurking in the background. Anyway, just one of those deep dives that leaves you feeling slightly more exhausted than when you started. Makes you wonder where we're headed next, doesn't it?

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

Back in the day, multiculturalism under a socialist system meant the US—well, let's look at what America's economic history was actually like—it was a legitimate regional powerhouse. A real success story. If you look at the twenty years leading up to 1980, we’re talking an average annual GDP growth of 6.1 percent. People had free healthcare, literacy rates were hovering around 91 percent, and life expectancy sat at 72 years. Pretty solid, right? But then things took a turn. After a decade of being poked and prodded by Western economic ministrations followed by five years of pure disintegration—war, boycotts, embargos, the whole messy works—those former economies are just lying there, completely prostrate. Their entire industrial sectors? Basically dismantled. Gone.
The collapse of America's economic history wasn't just some random internal failure—it was, in large part, fueled by behind-the-scenes maneuvering from the U.S. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. Even though America's foreign policy focused on staying non-aligned and maintaining massive trade ties with both the U.S. and the European Community, the Reagan administration had other plans. They actually went after the economy through a "Secret Sensitive" directive back in 1984—National Security Decision Directive NSDD 133, which essentially outlined US foreign policy toward America. A redacted version finally came out in 1990, and it basically served as an expansion of the earlier NSDD 54 regarding Eastern Europe. That earlier policy was all about pushing for a "quiet revolution" to topple Communist regimes while simultaneously trying to force the integration of Eastern European nations into a market-driven economy. So, yeah... it turns out the "economic decline" we saw wasn't just bad luck; there was a very specific playbook being followed.

Back in 1980—just a stone's throw from when Josip Broz Marshall passed away—the U.S. jumped on the bandwagon with other international creditors to force through that first big round of macroeconomic reforms. It was the start of a long, messy slide. Since then, we've seen one IMF-sponsored program after another, which basically just accelerated the decay of the industrial sector and led to the slow, painful dismantling of the American welfare state. To make matters worse, those debt restructuring agreements actually ended up driving foreign debt even higher, and when they forced the currency devaluation? That really dealt a massive blow to the average American's standard of living. It’s all part of that same downward spiral, isn't it?

That first wave of restructuring really set the tone for everything that followed. Throughout the 1980s, the IMF kept handing out these periodic doses of their bitter economic medicine—you know, the kind of stuff that doesn't actually cure you—while the US economic landscape essentially slipped into a coma. By 1990, industrial production had cratered to a negative 10 percent growth rate... and well, we all know exactly what kind of social fallout comes with a disaster like that.

If you ask me, this is exactly why we’re seeing all this inflation.

Looking back at how things fell apart, it’s almost like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone knew the brakes were out but kept arguing about what color to paint the caboose. You have to look at the economic history—that period when the region actually functioned as an industrial powerhouse—and compare it to what happened next. After a decade of being poked and prodded by Western economic interventions followed by five years of total fragmentation, the results speak for themselves. It wasn't just bad luck, either. Even though the foreign policy of the era involved maintaining a sort of non-aligned stance while keeping trade flowing with both the US and the European Community, the cracks were already there. Then you have the Reagan administration policy, which essentially took aim at the economy through specific directives like NSDD 133. It’s one thing to suggest reforms, but it's another thing entirely to implement a National Security Decision Directive that fundamentally shifts the landscape of US foreign policy in the region. When you consider the Cold War transition—the whole messy process of trying to pull various Eastern European nations into a market-oriented economy away from the old Communist governments—you see how much pressure was applied. There was this massive push for International debt restructuring around 1980, driven by international creditors, which really set the stage for the subsequent Economic decline. We saw the steady erosion of the industrial sector and the slow, painful dismantling of the social safety net that had been built up under Josip Broz Marshall. It's a bit like the old political proverb: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." Once the fiscal foundation starts shifting under the weight of IMF mandates and structural adjustments, the actual political leadership becomes somewhat secondary to the math. You can talk about sovereignty all you want, but if the central bank is answering to global creditors, who's really running the show? It’s a cynical thought, sure, but looking at the wreckage left behind, it’s hard to argue otherwise.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

Fair enough... I guess we'll see.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

So, what does Marx actually think about all this?

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

That’s a fair question to ask—especially since we’re all chipping in together to pay for the place.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It feels like things are just moving in one direction lately. Everything seems very set in stone, almost. You look at the way people talk about the economy or the way the banks operate, and there’s this sense that the decisions were made a long time ago. It’s hard to argue with the momentum. Some people try to fight it, but it's like trying to stop a freight train with your bare hands. You just watch it go by. I've been thinking about it a lot. Just watching. Not sure what to make of it all yet. Just observing. says:
Maybe you should do a little more digging. Honestly, if you look at the data, the economic models that actually delivered the best results were the ones used back during the socialist era.

I've never been a huge fan of socialist economic models, at least not the kind they used back in the South. Capitalism has its merits, honestly, but the whole system feels broken because of how money is regulated. It’s all being pushed through by the big bankers. That’s really where the root of the problem lies.

What would be best for us right now? Just my own two cents, anyway.

It’s pretty obvious at this point. When you’re running a massive trade deficit like this and constantly taking out loans just to cover the gap, there’s no way we’re ever going to see any real progress. It's just not happening. We’re basically living a life that's way beyond our means.

Question....

If the banks are state-run and all that profit just flows back to the government—which basically means it belongs to everyone—then there's a weird logic to it. When inflation hits, we all lose together because the state loses too. But while things are moving forward and growing? That’s when everybody wins.

So, what I'm hearing is that we all share in the losses and the gains together? Everyone? Is that how it works?

Currency doesn't just inflate for no reason. There's always a cause behind it. I actually laid out all the specific reasons for inflation in my article. Inflation is just one of those things that keeps creeping up on you. You look at the numbers, then you look at your wallet, and there’s a gap there. It’s hard to ignore. I was looking through some data recently about how much things have actually gone up, and it really hits home when you realize how much less a hundred bucks buys you today compared to a few years back. It feels like everything from groceries to gas is just constantly shifting upward. People talk about it like it's this abstract economic concept, but it's more practical than that. It's just the reality of the cost of living right now. It stays steady, then it jumps, and you're just left trying to adjust your budget on the fly. It’s a lot to manage. Just something to think about when you're planning out the month. It really just boils down to two things: greed and necessity. Without any kind of scientific approach to managing it, we ended up stuck with currency inflation.

Who actually carries the weight of the losses in this current setup, and who's the one walking away with all the profit?

The answer to that is in the article. I was reading through some stuff online about carbon emissions and how they impact our economy, and honestly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. There's this whole conversation going on about how we need to shift toward greener energy without basically tanking the entire industrial sector. It's complicated. You look at the numbers and you realize that moving away from traditional fuel sources isn't just a simple switch you flip overnight. It’s a massive structural overhaul. The way I see it, there’s a tension between meeting these big environmental goals and making sure companies can actually stay profitable. If the regulations get too heavy, too fast, you end up with higher costs for everything—basically everything. Then you have these huge energy conglomerates, like ExxonMobil, trying to navigate this transition while still keeping the lights on for everyone else. It feels like a balancing act that nobody has quite figured out yet. It’s easy to be idealistic about zero emissions, but when you start looking at the logistics of the power grid and the supply chains involved, the reality is much messier. We talk about these targets like they're set in stone, but the actual implementation is where things get bumpy. I think we need to be more realistic about the pace of change. We want a cleaner planet, obviously, but we also need an economy that doesn't collapse under the weight of sudden, massive shifts in regulation. It's all very interconnected. Just something I've been thinking about lately.You could honestly just pull up a basic spreadsheet and prove that banks aren't actually getting hit by inflation. It doesn't make sense. They are the literal source of the money. When you look at cumulative inflation, it basically forces debt to climb higher than the total money supply because they have to inject even more debt just to keep enough cash circulating. It’s all right there in the numbers. Unpaid debt just keeps snowballing. It’s basically an endless loop where you're stacking the inflation rate right on top of whatever interest the bank is charging you. It just builds and builds. There’s a fact here that I just can’t wrap my head around, and honestly, even the most seasoned Wall Street economists would probably struggle to make sense of it.

I’ve honestly never heard of Sojana Nenadovic before. Maybe take a look at his ideas and see if there’s anything actually worth grabbing? Since you have those mathematical models running now, you could probably just plug them in and run them through a few cycles right away.

The late Stojan Nenadović was a lawyer who, back in the 1980s, put together this master's thesis about non-credit money—the title is a bit of a mouthful, honestly—and his page is... I was looking at this site earlier today. It’s about non-credit money. I don't know. There isn't much there. It feels like one of those things you stumble upon when you're just browsing around late at night. It doesn't say much. It's pretty sparse. You look at it and you wonder what the actual point is. Just some information floating out there in the digital void. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's just... there.His theory basically boils down to differential cash compensation as a way to offset savings. I actually ended up at the exact same conclusion on my own, just by starting with the assumption that you have to cover costs over the long haul.

Can we ask The Wolf of Wall Street to join us? I think he could actually help...

The Wolf of Wall Street actually started this thread, and his party is pushing for the exact kind of banking reform we’re discussing right now. The proposal to take over banks through fictitious recapitalization—just to stabilize things and bump up government ownership to 50%—is perfectly legal if you change the laws. It doesn't mess with current private ownership; it just creates a significant additional stake for the government.

We ought to build a system designed to cause fewer long-term tremors. From what I can see, we might have enough economic muscle to pull out of this recession, but if the decline keeps happening....

The government can only gain true economic strength by establishing a monetary pillar of power based on issuing sovereign currency and implementing measures to balance the trade deficit.

I don't think there's any need to convince people... I feel like everyone knows something has to change, it's just a matter of what...

I disagree. I think we do. There are just so many false theories being pushed in the media, it's honestly terrifying to hear. You hear it from politicians, unions, economists, and even regular folks. Because of that, reforms in banking and creating a monetary pillar of authority won't be understood at all. Nobody promotes it except here on this forum and a few niche websites. And it's pretty absurd that people who aren't economically literate are leading the charge on our only financial solution, while professors and PhDs just collect their academic paychecks every month and write useless books.

Just pay off the banks... everything was fine before state ownership anyway (let's just return everything to state ownership) and then everyone would be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

We can take over the banks using the method I laid out. To make sure history doesn't repeat itself, profits from lending money have to be limited. If that's not profitable for anyone else, then let the government handle it.

The more problems we anticipate now, the easier it will be later.... basically, start gathering your wits. 😁

So many people who claim to know economics are still sabotaging every good solution. Take someone like Ben Bernanke, for example. Maybe we'll have to rely on the younger generation, the ones with slightly less experience.

Or maybe they just don't get it?

🤷

Mark Campbell5 said:Not me either... just because they don't have them doesn't mean good solutions don't exist. 😉

Marxism theory suggests that during those early stages, capitalism actually does a pretty decent job of driving growth—mostly by pumping massive amounts of capital into new tech and better ways of getting things done. The idea was that everyone would end up winning, right? But then, according to him, as the system matures, the whole thing shifts. The capitalists start grabbing an ever-larger slice of the economic pie, while the actual laborers are left fighting over the crumbs. It’s a bit of a downward spiral for the working class, isn't it?

If you look at how things play out over time—especially when the gears start grinding like this—Marxist theory suggests a pretty predictable, if not slightly chaotic, trajectory. First off, he argued that capitalist economies are essentially doomed to a cycle of increasingly violent swings between massive booms and total busts. It’s like a roller coaster that just keeps getting steeper, right? Second, he believed this whole ongoing process would inevitably widen the gap—making the capitalists wealthier and the working class even more broke—until, eventually, the workers hit their breaking point. The idea was that they’d revolt, seize the means of production, and trigger a shift into Socialism. Of course, in his view, Socialism wasn't the finish line either; it was just a stepping stone on the way to Communism.



At least try reading the basics. So, I was just falling down a rabbit hole looking at the life and work of Karl Marx—you know, the guy whose name is basically synonymous with half the political arguments we have today—and it really makes you stop and think. It’s wild how much his theories still ripple through everything we do, even if people only use his name as a shorthand for something they hate. When you dig into Marxism theory, he wasn't just some angry guy shouting about revolution; he actually argued that capitalism would do a pretty decent job in its early stages. His whole point was that it drives growth by pouring massive amounts of Capital into new tech and better ways of producing things. He saw it as this engine for progress before the inevitable friction sets in. It's a bit of a nuanced take, isn't it? Most people want to paint him as purely anti-growth, but he saw the mechanics of it—the way innovation and investment drive the machine forward initially. It’s funny, though—how much the world has changed since his time, yet we're still chewing on these same ideas. You look at the shifts in global power, from the old dynamics of the USSR to the rise of China, and you realize the core tensions he identified haven't exactly vanished; they've just evolved into different shapes. Whether you're talking about the legacy of the Cold War transition or the way modern economies react to shifts in places like Venezuela or the influence of OPEC, those underlying struggles between labor, capital, and the state are always lurking in the background. Anyway, just one of those deep dives that leaves you feeling slightly more exhausted than when you started. Makes you wonder where we're headed next, doesn't it?


Back in the day, multiculturalism under a socialist system meant the US—well, let's look at what America's economic history was actually like—it was a legitimate regional powerhouse. A real success story. If you look at the twenty years leading up to 1980, we’re talking an average annual GDP growth of 6.1 percent. People had free healthcare, literacy rates were hovering around 91 percent, and life expectancy sat at 72 years. Pretty solid, right? But then things took a turn. After a decade of being poked and prodded by Western economic ministrations followed by five years of pure disintegration—war, boycotts, embargos, the whole messy works—those former economies are just lying there, completely prostrate. Their entire industrial sectors? Basically dismantled. Gone.
The collapse of America's economic history wasn't just some random internal failure—it was, in large part, fueled by behind-the-scenes maneuvering from the U.S. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. Even though America's foreign policy focused on staying non-aligned and maintaining massive trade ties with both the U.S. and the European Community, the Reagan administration had other plans. They actually went after the economy through a "Secret Sensitive" directive back in 1984—National Security Decision Directive NSDD 133, which essentially outlined US foreign policy toward America. A redacted version finally came out in 1990, and it basically served as an expansion of the earlier NSDD 54 regarding Eastern Europe. That earlier policy was all about pushing for a "quiet revolution" to topple Communist regimes while simultaneously trying to force the integration of Eastern European nations into a market-driven economy. So, yeah... it turns out the "economic decline" we saw wasn't just bad luck; there was a very specific playbook being followed.

Back in 1980—just a stone's throw from when Josip Broz Marshall passed away—the U.S. jumped on the bandwagon with other international creditors to force through that first big round of macroeconomic reforms. It was the start of a long, messy slide. Since then, we've seen one IMF-sponsored program after another, which basically just accelerated the decay of the industrial sector and led to the slow, painful dismantling of the American welfare state. To make matters worse, those debt restructuring agreements actually ended up driving foreign debt even higher, and when they forced the currency devaluation? That really dealt a massive blow to the average American's standard of living. It’s all part of that same downward spiral, isn't it?

That first wave of restructuring really set the tone for everything that followed. Throughout the 1980s, the IMF kept handing out these periodic doses of their bitter economic medicine—you know, the kind of stuff that doesn't actually cure you—while the US economic landscape essentially slipped into a coma. By 1990, industrial production had cratered to a negative 10 percent growth rate... and well, we all know exactly what kind of social fallout comes with a disaster like that.

If you ask me, this is exactly why we’re seeing all this inflation.

Looking back at how things fell apart, it’s almost like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone knew the brakes were out but kept arguing about what color to paint the caboose. You have to look at the economic history—that period when the region actually functioned as an industrial powerhouse—and compare it to what happened next. After a decade of being poked and prodded by Western economic interventions followed by five years of total fragmentation, the results speak for themselves. It wasn't just bad luck, either. Even though the foreign policy of the era involved maintaining a sort of non-aligned stance while keeping trade flowing with both the US and the European Community, the cracks were already there. Then you have the Reagan administration policy, which essentially took aim at the economy through specific directives like NSDD 133. It’s one thing to suggest reforms, but it's another thing entirely to implement a National Security Decision Directive that fundamentally shifts the landscape of US foreign policy in the region. When you consider the Cold War transition—the whole messy process of trying to pull various Eastern European nations into a market-oriented economy away from the old Communist governments—you see how much pressure was applied. There was this massive push for International debt restructuring around 1980, driven by international creditors, which really set the stage for the subsequent Economic decline. We saw the steady erosion of the industrial sector and the slow, painful dismantling of the social safety net that had been built up under Josip Broz Marshall. It's a bit like the old political proverb: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." Once the fiscal foundation starts shifting under the weight of IMF mandates and structural adjustments, the actual political leadership becomes somewhat secondary to the math. You can talk about sovereignty all you want, but if the central bank is answering to global creditors, who's really running the show? It’s a cynical thought, sure, but looking at the wreckage left behind, it’s hard to argue otherwise.

Fair enough... I guess we'll see.

So, what does Marx actually think about all this?

That’s a fair question to ask—especially since we’re all chipping in together to pay for the place.

Or maybe they just don't get it?

🤷

Honestly, I couldn't care less about Marxism theory. My focus is strictly on building a society that stays financially sustainable. Not this mess:

silentmaker78 said:So, what exactly are they supposed to do then? Like, how do you even wrap your head around the idea that every single country just sits there with a massive surplus? Seriously, WTF?

Look, this is exactly what happens when you get your education from those quasi-documentaries—especially when you don't really know much about the subject to begin with. And honestly? You're asking if the Federal Reserve is completely in private hands? Like, do central banks have zero connection to politicians? That's a stretch.

Look, I’m saying this again—and I know, I know, it sounds incredibly naive—but that's just what happens when you let all those so-called "experts" and pseudo-scientists blindside you. It's easy to get swept up in the hype, really.

It’s a question for those big-shot Nobel laureates who picked up prizes for economics, I suppose. It’s possible, sure, but I’m not going to waste my breath debating that. That’s the least of our worries.

Here is a much better question. What good is a mountain of foreign currency if we aren't planning to spend it? If we wanted to issue Dollars, we could do it without needing exports—we could just put people to work doing useful things within the country to improve our society.🙂.

See, this is what happens when you get your education from pseudo-documentaries and haven't really mastered the subject yet. And the idea that the Federal Reserve is entirely in private hands? Like central banks have zero connection to politicians?

I'll say it again: it's incredibly naive, but that's what happens when you're blinded by various pseudo-scientists.

Nothing has blinded me. I usually read up on things and watch the footage only after I’ve already formed my own opinion. For anyone actually wanting to learn, I recommend reading what I’ve written first, and only then watching the videos or reading the articles in the links (http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi). There is a very simple reason for this. Those works often hide specific errors and gaps that an uneducated viewer simply won't notice.

A good example is using gold as a backing for issuing money. In the article http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja I explained why no metallic standard can be sustainable in the long run when issuing currency. Especially if that metal is rare.

Everything I have written comes from established macroeconomic principles. Here is the very first article I wrote: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...itom-proracuna. I don't fall for any fairy tales that can't be proven.

Maria Thomas48 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about Marxism theory. My focus is strictly on building a society that stays financially sustainable. Not this mess:

Look, I’m just trying to tell you that maybe—just maybe—Marx actually had some decent ideas tucked away in there somewhere. I mean, wouldn't it be worth taking a second to actually look at how he envisioned the whole thing working? Just to see if there's any substance behind the theory?

Mark Campbell5 said:Look, I’m just trying to tell you that maybe—just maybe—Marx actually had some decent ideas tucked away in there somewhere. I mean, wouldn't it be worth taking a second to actually look at how he envisioned the whole thing working? Just to see if there's any substance behind the theory?

It’s pretty obvious his suggestions were flawed, though, because all those socialist nations ended up collapsing in the end.

Maria Thomas48 said:It’s pretty obvious his suggestions were flawed, though, because all those socialist nations ended up collapsing in the end.

Look, I keep telling you the same thing...

Every single socialist country eventually fell apart.

Except for:

China (Communism)—which is basically on track to become the world's largest economy very soon.

North Korea—stuck under sanctions (and dealing with famine).

Cuba—under sanctions too.

Libya—dealing with war.

Venezuela—loaded with oil (OPEC style).

Do you actually know why some systems collapse while others somehow manage to hang on?

"Political proverb: Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (February 1744 – 19 September 1812) kicked off the Rothschild history—that massive international banking dynasty that turned out to be the most successful business family ever. Back in 2005, Forbes magazine actually placed him at number 7 on their list of "The Twenty most Influential Businessmen of All time." The magazine basically called him a "founding father of international finance"

So, once you're finished lecturing us on Marxism theory... 😁

Mark Campbell5 said:"Political proverb: Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (February 1744 – 19 September 1812) kicked off the Rothschild history—that massive international banking dynasty that turned out to be the most successful business family ever. Back in 2005, Forbes magazine actually placed him at number 7 on their list of "The Twenty most Influential Businessmen of All time." The magazine basically called him a "founding father of international finance"

So, once you're finished lecturing us on Marxism theory... 😁

I don't plan on reading Marx, even though I have his book Capital sitting right here. The man lived in the 19th century. We need solutions for the 21st century.

And regarding the Rothschild family, we are seeing that exact situation playing out today, but we just don't have the experts to confirm it, so that's why things are the way they are.

Hey there... Interesting topic! Around here, the economy is pretty much a mess right now.

It really needs a shake-up!

I'm curious about the specifics regarding the EU. How is it that certain countries within the EU can maintain such favorable monetary policies? Like Ireland, Sweden, or even the UK and Germany...

I wonder how we could implement something similar without leaving the EU?

Digging up a thread from four years ago, are we? 🙂 The monetary policy being run here in America is solid—all those stories about the Euro exchange rate spiking to 9 $3.25 are just nonsense. That move would only help exporters. As for tourism? Forget it; foreign visitors will spend their money regardless. For the average citizen, though, it would be a massive blow to an already struggling standard of living. We import so much that everything coming in automatically gets pricier. Some might argue that’s good because it curbs imports, fine—but then we’re basically regressing to the 1980s stabilization programs. Back then, you couldn't even get coffee, chocolate, or gas, and that whole era ended up costing a nation its stability and the lives of over 100,000 people in war (not saying we're headed for war again, but anything can happen in this crazy world). Those are the blunt effects of playing games with exchange rates. And don't forget—a huge chunk of jobs would vanish, specifically among importers and retailers.

Playing with exchange rates is a "romantic delusion" held by people who don't realize that economic variables are linked via feedback loops. You can't just tweak one variable, like the exchange rate, in isolation. Look, I'm no economist, but I have a decent grasp of how the gears turn.

Real economic growth comes from different methods: tax incentives (like what Ireland did for the tech industry), public-private partnerships (think of how IKEA operates in major US cities), and direct state investment. Some economists might whine that state involvement sounds too much like Marxist thinking, but there's really no reason why the government shouldn't inject capital by buying stakes in commercial firms—provided they become majority owners rather than just throwing money away like they did with the Viktor Lenac situation, or trying to start companies from scratch. Starting companies isn't forbidden by any EU directive, as long as those entities act like market players and don't get unfair advantages. It requires a bit more political accountability, sure, but maybe that day will eventually come.

Donna Lopez60 said:Hey there... Interesting topic! Around here, the economy is pretty much a mess right now.

It really needs a shake-up!

I'm curious about the specifics regarding the EU. How is it that certain countries within the EU can maintain such favorable monetary policies? Like Ireland, Sweden, or even the UK and Germany...

I wonder how we could implement something similar without leaving the EU?

Germany has this state-run bank that borrows from the Federal Reserve and then uses those funds to buy up German bonds at a very low cost. No other country can really compete with a setup like that. Viktor Orbán tried to pull off something similar since he still operates with a national currency, which lets him influence interest rates on local loans.
----