Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

placidranger said:And you’d probably change it just so you could hand control over the money supply directly to politicians.
🙏

Don't forget that today's politicians are basically working for the bankers. We need new people who aren't corrupted yet.

Maria Thomas48 said:It honestly doesn't matter whose curse it is. I really couldn't care less about the names of those slimy characters.

Do you see what real political corruption actually looks like? It isn't about some shady backroom deals or breaking the rules. It’s much deeper than that. It’s when they force through regulations designed specifically to turn everyone else into economic slaves. You see it on the protest signs in Spain—people shouting that "The banks created the crisis." They aren't talking about illegal activity or anything even remotely crooked. They mean people acting perfectly within the law to achieve these results. That is the true corruption.

The system needs an overhaul. It’s not about the people; they aren't the ones at fault just because they took out loans. They didn't really have any other choice. The whole thing is built on regulations that are intentionally designed to be nonsensical. And if you ask why everyone else seems blind to this, it’s simple. Those same bankers basically funded the education system, leaving us with nothing but incompetent economists. Then, they went ahead and bought up the mainstream media, so you can only find the truth if you look at a few niche outlets. Here’s an example: I was just looking over prosperityuk.com earlier. It’s interesting stuff. I tend to spend way too much time falling down these rabbit holes on the internet, just reading through different theories and economic outlooks. Sometimes you find something that actually makes sense, and other times it's just noise. This site feels like one of those things where you have to sit with it for a while to figure out what they're really getting at. It’s pretty straightforward, though. Just some thoughts on how things are moving. Not sure if everyone will agree with their take, but it's worth a look if you have the time to kill. Anyway, just something on my mind today.They hold these conferences and summits for decades on end, but honestly, you barely see any actual progress in American society. We’re just barreling headfirst into this debt crisis. If you look back at what they were writing about the EU's common currency way back in 2000, it’s clear—they basically wrote its downfall right into the founding documents. Our own Federal Reserve aligned itself with the European System of Central Banks back in 1994, and we've been stuck in a cycle of crises ever since. Gust Santin spent an entire year trying to pin down the cause, though he didn't quite nail the real reason.

So, what’s your take on all this?

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

Maria Thomas48 said:Don't forget that today's politicians are basically working for the bankers. We need new people who aren't corrupted yet.

Well, that sounds like a brilliant plan. Truly.
All we really need is a group of politicians who haven't been corrupted yet.

Look, I think your entire reform program is a disaster. We’ve seen this movie before—nobody has ever managed to jumpstart an economy just by tinkering with banking regulations. But honestly, where are you even getting these takes? Is Ljubo Jurčić some kind of mentor to you? If he wanted to, he could spawn an entire dynasty of people like him. Does he have some secret recipe for producing these types? It feels like they’re being cooked up in some Soviet laboratory somewhere.

If only we could get our hands on some untainted politicians... Look, even if you assume every politician is effectively on the payroll of the big banks, what’s stopping the next wave of newcomers from joining them? What exactly are you going to do—stand there with a scowl on your face to stop them?

Mark Campbell5 said:So, what’s your take on all this?

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

It’s a smart move—the recent string of thefts has been a nightmare, but at least they've managed to grab some attention. It’s similar to those stories circulating about anonymous drug trafficking rings.

Maria Thomas48 said:Don't forget that today's politicians are basically working for the bankers. We need new people who aren't corrupted yet.

Where does this idea come from—treating politicians like they're some kind of superhuman beings?

The odds of finding "untainted" politicians are pretty much the same as finding "untainted" bankers. Honestly—do you really believe we can have bankers who won't eventually exploit their own power and position?

Maria Thomas48 said:The first part was pretty insufficient for me since it didn't explain where a banker's profit actually comes from. It just stated they made money, without explaining where the capital for that profit originated. Plus, for any company, every investment is essentially an added cost meant to generate profit for that entrepreneur. Where does that return come from? Neither that nor the origin of banking profits were explained. These videos can be really dull. You picked a bad example for teaching!

He tells you exactly where the profit comes from in the second part—it's just heavily simplified. If I had told you to go read something like Rothbard’s "The Mystery of Banking," I knew you wouldn't bother. I was being too optimistic thinking anyone would actually set aside 30 minutes to watch the whole thing and educate themselves. My mistake; what did I expect?

And look, the profit for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks comes from creating new value. For instance, if you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them—those strawberries didn't exist before. Now they do. That is tangible, very delicious value.

Maria Thomas48 said:Don't forget that today's politicians are basically working for the bankers. We need new people who aren't corrupted yet.

😂

Anyway, up until now, I actually thought you believed the things you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a troll. Good luck to you. 👍

Mark Campbell5 said:So, what’s your take on all this?

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

The text is in English, and my English isn't exactly top-tier. From what I can gather, it's about a currency you can only spend once.

I wouldn't spend too much energy on those specific ideas. When you're issuing currency, the most critical factor is the profit from the issuance itself. Right now, bankers rake in those issuance profits through loans, and we get this side effect where one person's gain creates even more debt for someone else. Then those people go under. It's basically poker economics.

It's actually quite natural for those issuance profits to be spread out among as many producers as possible. The best way to handle that would be through contributions to a sovereign wealth fund, child benefits, disability assistance, and things like that.

All this nonsense driven by inflation fears won't be necessary if we just shut down every attempt at parallel money issuance via credit, or debt accumulation, or unjustified price hikes—like when there's a natural disaster or just plain corporate greed.

As you might have seen in an article here ( banking by Ivan Pernar & Nostrađurus supports a solution similar to what I'm proposing.

This isn't just some wish list; it's a concept meant to last forever. There's still work to do on it, though, because plenty of details still need to be regulated.

Harold Nelson6 said:Where does this idea come from—treating politicians like they're some kind of superhuman beings?

The odds of finding "untainted" politicians are pretty much the same as finding "untainted" bankers. Honestly—do you really believe we can have bankers who won't eventually exploit their own power and position?

We need new politicians to push through changes at the national level so they actually become part of the Constitution. I've been reading through the Constitution, and there’s absolutely nothing in there about state money or who has the right to issue it. Is that just a coincidence, or is it intentional? In America, the Constitution states that only the government has the authority to issue currency. That rule has been violated for 98 years now, and anyone who tries to fix it gets shut down immediately.

I actually suggested filing a constitutional lawsuit because of the damage done when the government handed over the power of money issuance to private banks. prof. Smerdl literally labeled that my own personal conspiracy against the system! Does that tell you anything about the Constitution, especially considering he was involved in its creation? Not everything that glitters is gold.

mistystag90 said:He tells you exactly where the profit comes from in the second part—it's just heavily simplified. If I had told you to go read something like Rothbard’s "The Mystery of Banking," I knew you wouldn't bother. I was being too optimistic thinking anyone would actually set aside 30 minutes to watch the whole thing and educate themselves. My mistake; what did I expect?

And look, the profit for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks comes from creating new value. For instance, if you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them—those strawberries didn't exist before. Now they do. That is tangible, very delicious value.

😂

Anyway, up until now, I actually thought you believed the things you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a troll. Good luck to you. 👍

The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

placidranger said:Well, that sounds like a brilliant plan. Truly.
All we really need is a group of politicians who haven't been corrupted yet.

Look, I think your entire reform program is a disaster. We’ve seen this movie before—nobody has ever managed to jumpstart an economy just by tinkering with banking regulations. But honestly, where are you even getting these takes? Is Ljubo Jurčić some kind of mentor to you? If he wanted to, he could spawn an entire dynasty of people like him. Does he have some secret recipe for producing these types? It feels like they’re being cooked up in some Soviet laboratory somewhere.

If only we could get our hands on some untainted politicians... Look, even if you assume every politician is effectively on the payroll of the big banks, what’s stopping the next wave of newcomers from joining them? What exactly are you going to do—stand there with a scowl on your face to stop them?

It’s a smart move—the recent string of thefts has been a nightmare, but at least they've managed to grab some attention. It’s similar to those stories circulating about anonymous drug trafficking rings.

We've got Pernar!

Look, I think your whole reform program is a total disaster. It’s the same old story—we’ve tried this before and nobody ever actually manages to jumpstart the economy just by tinkering with banking regulations. But honestly, where are you even getting these ideas? Is Ljubo Jurčić some kind of mentor or something to you? Because if he were in charge, he’d probably just end up creating an entire dynasty of people exactly like him. Does he have some secret recipe for churning out these types? It feels like they’re being cooked up in some Soviet laboratory or something. Where do they even come from?

I was talking about putting that money back into the hands of the government. Any kind of power without control isn't worth anything at all. It's like an atomic bomb.

If only we could get some untainted politicians in office... I mean, even if you assume all politicians are just working for the bankers, what’s actually stopping the next wave of newcomers from ending up on that same payroll? What are you going to do about it? Stand there with a scowl on your face waiting for them to fall in line?

Corruption is actually the biggest issue we face.Corruption is just part of the system. It’s baked into the foundation. You look at how things work here in America and you see the patterns everywhere. People talk about reform like it's a simple fix, but it isn't. It’s deep. It’s structural. Banking by Ivan Pernar & Maria Thomas48 touches on this, too. There is a connection between the way money moves through large institutions and the way influence is bought and sold. It’s all one big web. You can try to untangle a single thread, but the whole thing just shifts. I was thinking about what Rothbard wrote regarding the nature of state power. He had a point. When the Government gets involved in the economy, the lines between public service and private gain get blurred. It happens in Washington, it happens in New York, it happens everywhere. It’s not just a few bad actors. It’s the way the machine is built to run. Some people think they can change it by voting or protesting. That's fine, I guess. But if the underlying structure rewards corruption, then the results will always be the same. It’s just an observation. Everything is connected. Money, power, policy. It’s all moving in the same direction.It all boils down to the concentration of capital. It’s about that deep-seated desire to stack more of it until you can actually rule through that wealth. The only way to pull that off is to buy out the politicians, the education system, and the media. And honestly, looking around at what we have now... which part of that hasn't already happened?

To stop this from happening again, we need leadership based on actual knowledge. We can't just have people blathering on and mocking anyone who points out massive mistakes like they’re committing high treason. That's not how it works. We need to amend the Constitution and actually build those principles into the foundation.

The US has been screwed out of about $30 billion because of bad laws. Who’s actually responsible for that mess? The Ministry of the Treasury. It’s happening because we just sit there and let them get away with it. We defend it.

It’s just like that whole history lesson on Nazism. If you don't react when things start getting intense, everything just escalates. And by the time it finally reaches our doorstep, it's already too late to do anything about it.

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

Nothing holds permanent value. A person is born, lives their life, and eventually dies. While you're here, sure, you can enjoy some fresh strawberries. But that’s not the point. It doesn't matter what the latest "value" is, as long as there's someone out there willing to buy into it. It could be anything—a fidget spinner, a burger, a locomotive, a space station, software, adult content... it doesn't matter. It's all just temporary.

Look, those corrupt bankers stripped Elon Musk of everything he had. Now, poor Elon Musk has decided to just give up and go plant strawberries. 🙂A banker loves strawberries and buys them from Elon Musk. Now, Elon Musk has the cash. I honestly don't follow how you managed to conclude that the strawberries were free.

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

Let's go.

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

If you're looking at a scenario where the money supply is strictly capped and there’s absolutely no way to inject any new liquidity into the system, then yeah—house prices are going to crater. It’s basic economics. That’s what we call deflation.

Just to be clear here. The actual value of the house hasn't changed. It still functions exactly how a house is supposed to function, but its market price has dropped simply because there’s more supply chasing the exact same amount of money.

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

This is exactly what you and Donald Trump have been fighting against for eight pages now: this whole concept of money being "created" out of thin air. Honestly, I’m starting to lose track of what your actual goal is here. Are you fighting to keep the money supply strictly limited to what already exists—which, based on your own logic, would just screw over the people actually doing the work instead of those who already sit on piles of cash—or are you fighting against the creation of new money altogether? Because right now, it feels like you've spent eight pages tilting at windmills.

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

Personally, I checked out of politics and gave up on politicians a long time ago. My philosophy is pretty simple: you're the architect of your own destiny, and I don't expect anyone to swoop in with a magic wand to fix my life. But hey, to each their own... 🤷

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

That's not right.

In your scenario—if the value of money increases—it increases for everyone equally. So, if you were ten times wealthier than me before, you'll still be ten times wealthier than me after the change. You aren't profiting any more than I am; we both "profit" from that "hard work" at the exact same rate.

Honestly, you're drawing a ton of wrong conclusions here—but because you're throwing out so many different points and data sets, nobody really has the time or the energy to sit down and debunk every single one of them individually.

mistystag90 said:Nothing holds permanent value. A person is born, lives their life, and eventually dies. While you're here, sure, you can enjoy some fresh strawberries. But that’s not the point. It doesn't matter what the latest "value" is, as long as there's someone out there willing to buy into it. It could be anything—a fidget spinner, a burger, a locomotive, a space station, software, adult content... it doesn't matter. It's all just temporary.

Look, those corrupt bankers stripped Elon Musk of everything he had. Now, poor Elon Musk has decided to just give up and go plant strawberries. 🙂A banker loves strawberries and buys them from Elon Musk. Now, Elon Musk has the cash. I honestly don't follow how you managed to conclude that the strawberries were free.

Let's go.

If you're looking at a scenario where the money supply is strictly capped and there’s absolutely no way to inject any new liquidity into the system, then yeah—house prices are going to crater. It’s basic economics. That’s what we call deflation.

Just to be clear here. The actual value of the house hasn't changed. It still functions exactly how a house is supposed to function, but its market price has dropped simply because there’s more supply chasing the exact same amount of money.

This is exactly what you and Donald Trump have been fighting against for eight pages now: this whole concept of money being "created" out of thin air. Honestly, I’m starting to lose track of what your actual goal is here. Are you fighting to keep the money supply strictly limited to what already exists—which, based on your own logic, would just screw over the people actually doing the work instead of those who already sit on piles of cash—or are you fighting against the creation of new money altogether? Because right now, it feels like you've spent eight pages tilting at windmills.

Personally, I checked out of politics and gave up on politicians a long time ago. My philosophy is pretty simple: you're the architect of your own destiny, and I don't expect anyone to swoop in with a magic wand to fix my life. But hey, to each their own... 🤷

I already told you, there isn't any money out there. Nobody is actually printing it or issuing it. It all comes down to the basic laws of supply and demand. If that's how it works, then I guess strawberries should be free. That's your law for you.

If the money supply stays fixed and there’s no way to pump any new cash into the system, then yeah, house prices are going to drop. It's pretty straightforward. That’s just what deflation is.

Just to be clear on this. The actual value of the house hasn't changed. It still does exactly what a house is supposed to do. The price dropped simply because there are more houses available now, but everyone is still working with the same amount of money.

So, what’s a house actually worth in terms of cash? Honestly, it feels like such a pointless debate. If something has value because people need it, then its true value is just the amount of labor poured into making it. Period. If the price starts jumping around just because there isn't enough money floating around, that’s not a market issue—it’s a failure in how the money supply is regulated. The total amount of cash out there acts as this artificial limiter, which is exactly what creates all this inequality in value. It’s pretty obvious. Even a toddler could see that from an airplane.

This is exactly what you and The Wolf of Wall Street have been fighting against for eight pages now—this whole concept of money being "created" out of thin air. Honestly, I’m starting to lose track of what you're actually even fighting for anymore. Is it about keeping the money supply limited to what already exists, without any new creation? Because based on your own example, that just seems like it would screw over the people actually doing the work instead of the people who already sit on piles of cash. Or is it about the creation of new money, which is what you've been tilting at windmills over for the last eight pages?

I mean, it feels like you people in the Q continuum need to just stop and look around. Seriously. How much of everything we see was built by our own hands, and what actually happened because of it? We’re all just drowning in more debt. It’s us here in America, and it’s those other countries that sold us their goods in the first place. What's the common denominator in all of this? It's the regulation of money. It’s exactly the same here as it is everywhere else in the world.

I gave up on politics and politicians a long time ago. Honestly, I just believe that everyone has to forge their own path and make their own luck. I don't sit around waiting for some magical solution to fall from the sky from anyone. But hey, whatever works for people. 🤷

I gave up on all that a year ago. Back then, I actually tried reaching out to the government and various political parties with my mathematical proofs regarding those massive errors in monetary regulation. Of course, deep down, I knew it was a dead end. But sometimes you have to let the fools play their part just to prove how foolish they really are. You can't just sit around talking sense; you have to back everything up with hard, undeniable proof.

The only party that seemed to show any real interest was Glenn Beck’s. But honestly, I think it was just a gimmick to drum up attention for his group by hosting my articles on their site. His party claims to stand for workers' rights, but you can't actually achieve those rights under the current monetary regulations. Their economist couldn't even hide behind excuses or claim he hadn't been talking nonsense about state money printing—I saw a letter from someone complaining about how poorly the Labor Party had reasoned through all this.

Then there was Ivan's party, which didn't even exist back then. Sure, Ivan had these big ideas about free markets and whatnot, but there's a massive catch. Once you actually dive into how money regulation works, you realize that this version of the "free market" is basically just a scam for everyone.

And now we’re looking at entering the European market under these specific monetary rules set by the ECB. Common sense says that's a mistake. The banking system needs to be brought into line, just like any other service provider. Right now, banks are the ones calling the shots because there's no money left except what comes from them. You see this happening in plenty of countries.

The idea of nationalizing banks is usually the first thing people suggest, but it isn't a permanent fix. Printing money as debt leads nowhere. It's a dead end. It's just a century-old trick used by bankers to introduce economic slavery.

The problem is pretty obvious:

1. Banks issue money through loans, creating massive debt and scarcity.
2. The government goes into endless debt (99% of the time).
3. Bank profits keep growing regardless of inflation (I've proven that quite easily).
4. Privatization brings no benefits, only more burdens.
5. Pension funds are unsustainable; they just accumulate capital on one side to build up debt on the other.
6. Companies go bankrupt simply because there's no money to buy products, and new money just means more debt—that's why the government won't commit to major investments.
7. Unemployment rises because businesses are failing.
8. And so on.

We can turn a blind eye if we want, but nothing is going to change our fate except us. A massive bankruptcy and the sell-off of everything is approaching, and it's only happening because we refuse to issue our own currency and stop banks from doing it for their own gain.

Harold Nelson6 said:That's not right.

In your scenario—if the value of money increases—it increases for everyone equally. So, if you were ten times wealthier than me before, you'll still be ten times wealthier than me after the change. You aren't profiting any more than I am; we both "profit" from that "hard work" at the exact same rate.

Honestly, you're drawing a ton of wrong conclusions here—but because you're throwing out so many different points and data sets, nobody really has the time or the energy to sit down and debunk every single one of them individually.

People seem to forget that modern economists hate strengthening the currency through deflation and will do anything to prevent it. And they have their reasons. It's strange that you're defending this.

Here is why deflation is an issue. Deflation creates this absurd situation where the more you invest, the less you can actually earn. It's counterproductive. It doesn't stimulate production or spending. Money just becomes more valuable simply by holding onto it. I could go on with various technical qualifications, but I'd rather just ask that we stick to arguments and keep things civil.

Most of you are jumping on Ivan Pernar and his ideas about money printing without having any clue what's actually happening. I suggest you read my articles. The best breakdown is in the piece From Problem to Solution. In there, I showed how a simple thesis proves that everyone should ideally cover their costs or maybe save a little, given that the entire system is basically a pile of half-truths and scams. I mean, who wouldn't want to break even or maybe even save something? What's the issue with that?

Maria Thomas48 said:People seem to forget that modern economists hate strengthening the currency through deflation and will do anything to prevent it. And they have their reasons. It's strange that you're defending this.

Here is why deflation is an issue. Deflation creates this absurd situation where the more you invest, the less you can actually earn. It's counterproductive. It doesn't stimulate production or spending. Money just becomes more valuable simply by holding onto it. I could go on with various technical qualifications, but I'd rather just ask that we stick to arguments and keep things civil.

Most of you are jumping on Ivan Pernar and his ideas about money printing without having any clue what's actually happening. I suggest you read my articles. The best breakdown is in the piece From Problem to Solution. In there, I showed how a simple thesis proves that everyone should ideally cover their costs or maybe save a little, given that the entire system is basically a pile of half-truths and scams. I mean, who wouldn't want to break even or maybe even save something? What's the issue with that?

You're shifting the goalposts.

You provided an example thinking it supported your point, but when it was clearly shown that your specific example and thesis don't hold up, you pivoted to this general talk about how economists dislike deflation... Sure, mainstream economists don't want deflation, but that doesn't change the fact that your specific example still fails.

Harold Nelson6 said:You're shifting the goalposts.

You provided an example thinking it supported your point, but when it was clearly shown that your specific example and thesis don't hold up, you pivoted to this general talk about how economists dislike deflation... Sure, mainstream economists don't want deflation, but that doesn't change the fact that your specific example still fails.

I just wanted to point out that if current economic theory claims deflation is the only solution, then there's just a lack of intellect involved.

placidranger said:Well, that sounds like a brilliant plan. Truly.
All we really need is a group of politicians who haven't been corrupted yet.

Look, I think your entire reform program is a disaster. We’ve seen this movie before—nobody has ever managed to jumpstart an economy just by tinkering with banking regulations. But honestly, where are you even getting these takes? Is Ljubo Jurčić some kind of mentor to you? If he wanted to, he could spawn an entire dynasty of people like him. Does he have some secret recipe for producing these types? It feels like they’re being cooked up in some Soviet laboratory somewhere.

If only we could get our hands on some untainted politicians... Look, even if you assume every politician is effectively on the payroll of the big banks, what’s stopping the next wave of newcomers from joining them? What exactly are you going to do—stand there with a scowl on your face to stop them?

It’s a smart move—the recent string of thefts has been a nightmare, but at least they've managed to grab some attention. It’s similar to those stories circulating about anonymous drug trafficking rings.

Yeah, I'm with you on that...

https://ealnet2010a.wordpress.com/20...ing-or-stolen/

And their stock market took a dive too...

Maria Thomas48 said:The text is in English, and my English isn't exactly top-tier. From what I can gather, it's about a currency you can only spend once.

I wouldn't spend too much energy on those specific ideas. When you're issuing currency, the most critical factor is the profit from the issuance itself. Right now, bankers rake in those issuance profits through loans, and we get this side effect where one person's gain creates even more debt for someone else. Then those people go under. It's basically poker economics.

It's actually quite natural for those issuance profits to be spread out among as many producers as possible. The best way to handle that would be through contributions to a sovereign wealth fund, child benefits, disability assistance, and things like that.

All this nonsense driven by inflation fears won't be necessary if we just shut down every attempt at parallel money issuance via credit, or debt accumulation, or unjustified price hikes—like when there's a natural disaster or just plain corporate greed.

As you might have seen in an article here ( banking by Ivan Pernar & Nostrađurus supports a solution similar to what I'm proposing.

This isn't just some wish list; it's a concept meant to last forever. There's still work to do on it, though, because plenty of details still need to be regulated.

http://translate.google.com/

Google translates websites now, you know. 😉

Iceland
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle28391.htm

Egypt
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/469888

Mark Campbell5 said:Yeah, I'm with you on that...

https://ealnet2010a.wordpress.com/20...ing-or-stolen/

And their stock market took a dive too...

http://translate.google.com/

Google translates websites now, you know. 😉

Iceland
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle28391.htm

Egypt
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/469888

Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.

When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.

I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.

Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.

There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.

The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.

That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.

Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?

These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.

Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.

Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.

In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.

The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.

The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).

See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.

Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.

According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.

The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.

After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

If that's how it is, then just give us back the corrupt 👍

Maria Thomas48 said:Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.

When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.

I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.

Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.

There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.

The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.

That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.

Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?

These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.

Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.

Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.

In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.

The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.

The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).

See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.

Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.

According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.

The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.

After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?

Wikipedia

Maria Thomas48 said:Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.

When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.

I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.

Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.

There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.

The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.

That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.

Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?

These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.

Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.

Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.

In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.

The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.

The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).

See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.

Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.

According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.

The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.

After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?

Check out ZeroHedge. It’s basically where you go when you want to see what's actually happening behind the curtain—assuming you have the stomach for it. 😉

Maria Thomas48 said:Google Translate is actually pretty great if you're just looking at classic literature or standard texts. But once you start hitting specialized economic terms or specific institutions from another country's system, I'm lost. There are just too many unknowns for me to really grasp the core point.

When you look at what’s happening in Egypt, it’s honestly such a classic move. It's that old tactic where they hand out loans just to secure specific concessions later on. You could basically call it the textbook way of managing debt.

I stumbled upon a bunch of really solid articles written in straightforward English over at... prosperityuk.comAnd it’s not just a one-off thing either. They’ve been publishing these forecasts for over a decade now. Back in 2000, they were already claiming the dollar wouldn't be able to survive. I mean, we all know the underlying issue here. It’s a currency built on debt, and Germany isn't about to risk sliding into a recession just because of high interest rates driven by the situation in Greece. Italy is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy for that exact same reason.

Some good pieces on why we need new money regulations are right here. Simon Dixon's blog.The thing about Simon is that he’s actually a trained economist. That matters. He's the kind of guy you'd realistically want to put on the payroll just to advise us through the whole reform process.

There are movements all over the world pushing to reform how money is regulated, and honestly, seeing The Wolf of Wall Street advocate for this was just timely. We really need someone willing to stand up and fight against hopelessness. By promoting actual, viable solutions, we can hopefully push everyone toward avoiding the total financial collapse of both the government and most of the citizens.

The whole thing really boils down to just two possibilities. Either we head straight toward a guaranteed bankruptcy—which, let's be honest, is what the entire global economic establishment is already calling for—or we take this other path, the one Angela Merkel is pushing like she’s some kind of savior. But if you look closely, they aren't actually looking for an exit from the crisis at all. They don't care about fixing things. They're just looking out for themselves while everyone else goes under.

That’s basically how all the other political parties operate. If we just had a state-funded currency, we could easily slash our annual deficit by something like $9 billion. Over a single administration's term, that adds up to roughly $36 billion. Every previous government has seen their debt climb by at least that much. It really just means we could have gotten by with significantly less borrowing than we actually did.

Should we just keep banging our heads against the wall, or is it finally time to actually start using our brains?

These ideas about money supply aren't exactly new. They were being pushed around ninety years ago. Chartalism. It’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around when they want to sound smart at a dinner party, but if you really sit down and look at it, it changes everything about how we view money. It isn't just some niche economic theory tucked away in a textbook. It’s the foundation. It’s about how the state defines value through the power to tax. You can’t really understand modern fiscal policy without looking at this. People get caught up in the mechanics of gold or silver or whatever commodity they think should back a currency, but they miss the point entirely. Money is a social contract backed by the government. Period. It’s simple, really, even if economists like to make it complicated.The only real flaw in their logic is how they involve the banking sector. We all saw exactly how that plays out, looking back at those massive reforms during the 90s under Marković. The initial rollout was actually solid, but then everything just spiraled into hyperinflation. Now, I’m convinced it was a deliberate distraction designed to wreck the economy. It’s highly unlikely someone with Marković's level of expertise could be that blind to the consequences.

Even Keynes was kind of a joke. Once I realized that money is basically just being issued as even more massive debt, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone of his caliber could actually pitch state investment like that. It’s pretty obvious it leads to total ruin in the long run. But then again, if you look at smart government spending—I mean, really strategic, orderly investing—combined with non-credit money, you could actually turn this country into a powerhouse of prosperity.

Neoliberalism, free markets, credit-based common currencies, and outsourcing everything to East Asia—that's the recipe for global poverty for most people. It's pretty straightforward when you look at it. The free market is fundamentally limited by the money supply. And that supply? It all comes down to interest rates. Interest rates depend on exports. That’s just the reality of how this works. Only countries that can export enough can maintain low interest rates, but they still end up piling up massive amounts of debt regardless. Even if you manage to keep interest rates low, if there isn't enough export volume, the country starts generating debt and interest faster than it can handle. Look at what happened in places like Spain. Once that happens, the government is forced to hike taxes, which kills economic competitiveness, and once you're in that hole, it is incredibly hard to climb back out.

In the end, given how things are set up, it feels like there isn't an exit strategy. Everything follows a certain logic, except for the fact that the conclusion is 100% predictable—bankruptcy.

The Wolf of Wall Street initially argued that we need to allow for money expansion through low interest rates, but the fallout would just be credit expansion, a drain on foreign reserves to pay for imports, and yet more global debt. That exact same line of thinking is still being pushed today, and it's wrong. I found some data showing that back in the day, people in places like Spain had mortgage rates at 1-2% and car loans at 3%. Everyone thinks that's some kind of divine solution. It doesn't seem to be. Even with those tiny interest rates, Spain ended up drowning in massive debt.

The interest rate only dictates how fast the debt accumulates, not the direction the process takes. You have to strip interest out of the money issuance process entirely. The reason is simple. Over 80% of the money in circulation comes from credit. So, how are we supposed to pay the interest on that money? Assuming inflation exists and we are borrowing just to maintain purchasing power, the debt created this way tends to balloon because it's a combination of inflation plus the bank's interest. That explains why banks aren't bothered by inflation. Since all the money originates from the banks, inflation doesn't hurt them, and the debt grows much faster than the actual money supply (this is based on the diagram from the video, which I verified with a spreadsheet).

See, I actually sent a letter to the Federal Reserve asking how they plan to handle the cumulative impact of inflation when using credit to expand the money supply. I never got a response. It means they know exactly what the problem is, but they stay silent and just "do" their jobs. And they certainly aren't doing it for the people. The Federal Reserve should probably just rename itself the Un-People's Bank.

Back when protesters were forming live chains around the Fed building, I used to leave comments on the news saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But those days are over. Now it's perfectly clear what the Fed's true nature is. Total, exclusive support for the banks. There isn't a shred of support for the public left.

According to the laws governing the Fed, the Chair can propose measures to the government to improve how the system functions. Jerome Powell hasn't done that, and he isn't going to.
The Fed is just like any other central bank—it does everything except actually serve the citizens of the country.

The Wolf of Wall Street said the Fed acts like an exchange bureau. Do you know why the Fed doesn't issue low-interest loans to banks? Because that influx of cash would create a massive credit bubble and put immense pressure on our foreign reserves. The Fed keeps us struggling just to protect our reserves to maintain the exchange rate, allowing banks to swap their domestic profits into foreign currency. It’s all true, but only blind people fail to see it.

After all that, what is the fix? Do we stick to the old ways, or do we actually discuss how to end economic slavery in America?

So, did you actually catch that? Or were you too busy doing... whatever it is you do? Collapse? Back in 2009...

Here’s the latest video. I can't actually watch videos through this interface—it just gives me a link, not the content itself. If you want my take on what’s being said in that clip, you'll have to give me a quick rundown of the gist or paste a transcript. Once I know what we're dealing with, I can dive in and give you my actual thoughts. What's the video about? Is it more economic nonsense or just another deep dive into something nobody asked for? Let me know.

What’s your take on this?

🤔

Mark Campbell5 said:Wikipedia

Check out ZeroHedge. It’s basically where you go when you want to see what's actually happening behind the curtain—assuming you have the stomach for it. 😉

So, did you actually catch that? Or were you too busy doing... whatever it is you do? Collapse? Back in 2009...

Here’s the latest video. I can't actually watch videos through this interface—it just gives me a link, not the content itself. If you want my take on what’s being said in that clip, you'll have to give me a quick rundown of the gist or paste a transcript. Once I know what we're dealing with, I can dive in and give you my actual thoughts. What's the video about? Is it more economic nonsense or just another deep dive into something nobody asked for? Let me know.

What’s your take on this?

🤔

I find myself focusing more on how money is regulated here in America rather than all the chaos happening in global markets. It takes time to process everything, and you have to keep working to make a living. We all know there’s a theory that a global crisis has to be triggered to pave the way for a world government and a single global central bank. But I don't want to get sidetracked by that right now. That's not really what this discussion is about.

I’d much rather focus on our own success here in the States instead of worrying about global events that I can't really influence anyway. If we actually made the right moves here in America, we could serve as a model for overcoming any crisis, and that kind of thing could eventually impact countries all over the world.