Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

So, what do you think would actually happen if the entire global financial system just went belly up?

Nicole Gomez38 said:The whole point of non-credit money issuance is to balance debt against the money supply—if you don't have that balance, debt outpaces liquidity almost immediately (under the American monetary model 4 x)

Basically, any monetary system that relies solely on long-term credit rather than primary (non-credit) issuance is a fast track to total economic collapse; it just uses interest rates to bleed every bit of value dry. We see the evidence in real life every day—people just refuse to admit it.

The real killer is what I call "cumulative interest." Picture an American city with a million productive citizens. If everyone takes a one-year loan from $333 at a 10% interest rate, they’ll eventually have to pay back $367. After that year, they owe a combined $1.1 billion. The bank pockets $100 million, leaving everyone with $33 less than they started with. To bridge the gap, they take out a new loan, but this time it's for $367. By using $33 to cover the initial loss, they end up with $333 in debt. But now, the repayment requirement jumps to $403. Two years in, everyone is left with $70 less than their starting point. Meanwhile, the bank has raked in another $110 million, totaling $210 million in profit. As people take larger loans to stay afloat, the cycle repeats—you're drowning in deeper debt while your actual cash disappears.

To maintain the same level of purchasing power, we have to borrow more and more just to keep up. And what do the political elites do? Instead of fixing the broken monetary model, they push the country and its people into even deeper debt—essentially driving us toward modern-day debt slavery. Sadly, most folks won't realize how unsustainable this is until it's too late—until the day their accounts are frozen or the collectors come knocking. And honestly, some won't even realize it then.

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party claim that a monetary model where the Federal Reserve acts as an exchange bureau (with currency clauses) is fine, yet they also argue that long-term non-credit money issuance isn't sustainable. But those of you reading this can see the truth! Unfortunately, to see it clearly, you practically have to bang your head against a wall. The system will keep deceiving you until enough people hit that wall and realize the entire model is unsustainable—it's predatory, plain and simple.

The current American monetary system looks a lot like the Argentine system right before its crash...
http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...veo-u-propast/

So, if we look at the root cause of this entire long-winded saga, it really boils down to business failures and incompetent leadership. But let's pivot for a second: what happens to those people who actually played the game right? I’m talking about the entrepreneurs who took out a loan, launched a successful venture, paid back every cent of that credit, and then—having turned a profit—decided to deposit their surplus cash into a major American bank like JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America. Where exactly do they fit into your proposed "new world order"? And more importantly, what is your take on the potential nationalization of private banking assets? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how those responsible players are treated in such a scenario.

Joshua Diaz10 said:So, if we look at the root cause of this entire long-winded saga, it really boils down to business failures and incompetent leadership. But let's pivot for a second: what happens to those people who actually played the game right? I’m talking about the entrepreneurs who took out a loan, launched a successful venture, paid back every cent of that credit, and then—having turned a profit—decided to deposit their surplus cash into a major American bank like JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America. Where exactly do they fit into your proposed "new world order"? And more importantly, what is your take on the potential nationalization of private banking assets? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how those responsible players are treated in such a scenario.

If those people exist, they’re probably operating in the gray zone. The USA is basically a state with massive tax pressure and some of the most expensive capital out there. Anyone running a profitable business here, or holding any kind of monopoly, usually gets it through rigged government contracts with insane margins, or they're just dodging taxes, or maybe even selling drugs.
I'm not saying there aren't honest folks out there, but they're rare. Especially the ones actually making a profit.
The data from the Federal Reserve proves it—80% of the deposits in our commercial banks are amounts under 400 $0.00.

People who got rich in the US... they definitely aren't keeping that cash on domestic soil. Just look at where that former Prime Minister hid his money; they haven't even found everything yet. Maybe they've only recovered one percent of what he stole.

Mark Campbell5 said:So, what do you think would actually happen if the entire global financial system just went belly up?

Well, for people who believe money is just some digital number sitting in a bank account, losing everything would probably mean losing about 90% of their actual wealth. That’s just a rough guess. Some folks would lose absolutely everything, while others—the ones quick enough to pull their cash out in time—might walk away with nothing lost at all.

But honestly, a collapse like that would just be the perfect excuse to establish a massive global Federal Reserve and spread the whole scam even further.

Maria Thomas48, it seems like you’re still struggling to wrap your head around the whole concept of newly created value, despite what was being attempted to be explained via the strawberry analogy just a few pages back.
If we look at the mechanics of debt—say you borrow 100 bucks and have to pay back 110—you can't just run that cycle indefinitely without some actual value being generated along the way. It simply doesn't work unless there is new value being produced to cover the gap, and that is exactly what happens over time; for instance, a century ago, jumbo jets didn't exist, but now they do.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, for people who believe money is just some digital number sitting in a bank account, losing everything would probably mean losing about 90% of their actual wealth. That’s just a rough guess. Some folks would lose absolutely everything, while others—the ones quick enough to pull their cash out in time—might walk away with nothing lost at all.

But honestly, a collapse like that would just be the perfect excuse to establish a massive global Federal Reserve and spread the whole scam even further.

The Federal Reserve was actually established back in 1913. ☕

And then there’s this whole idea about primary money issuance going straight to those who need it most—give me a break. Honestly, I’d be the first one lining up to become a homeless person just so the government would hand me primary currency to live on without having to lift a finger. Pretty soon, you’d have everyone else doing the exact same thing, and before you know it, nobody is actually working anymore, and the entire system just collapses into total chaos. It’s the same downward spiral you see in those old Stalinist regimes.

I suppose I can admit to having read through your suggestions, which explains why I ended up being wrong. But I won't take any responsibility for reading them in the first place, because, frankly, there isn't a shred of logic to be found in them.

Jerry Williams41 said:Maria Thomas48, it seems like you’re still struggling to wrap your head around the whole concept of newly created value, despite what was being attempted to be explained via the strawberry analogy just a few pages back.
If we look at the mechanics of debt—say you borrow 100 bucks and have to pay back 110—you can't just run that cycle indefinitely without some actual value being generated along the way. It simply doesn't work unless there is new value being produced to cover the gap, and that is exactly what happens over time; for instance, a century ago, jumbo jets didn't exist, but now they do.

New value is definitely being created. No doubt about it. It's just that a portion of that value gets wiped out because it isn't permanent.

Just look at the numbers:

1. Savings for certain groups are going up (though how realistic those numbers are—whether they can actually be raised—is a different story).

2. Credit expansion is growing; during a crisis, it stalls, and if it starts dropping, we're basically in a coma.

From this, you can draw a conclusion: for savings to exist, someone has to put money in, and that happens through credit. Credit isn't just a simple "take and return" transaction; it's a continuous cycle of giving and giving. Someone creates new value, someone issues the credit, and someone else saves. Those who aren't saving might end up at zero or even in the red, both regarding their own savings and the bank's profit from them.

So here is the logical question: what is the point of a system where one side generates savings while the other side generates debt that is even larger than those savings? Sure, wealth isn't just cash in a savings account, but over time, a compound interest account could theoretically claim all physical wealth based solely on debt. Just take a single cent and let it sit for 2,000 years at 3% interest. With no initial debt and enough time, you could buy everything real on this planet.🙂 The only catch is that the debt can't be repaid. And it won't be possible when there is no money left. There is no money, because every single dollar issued represents an even larger debt. There simply isn't enough money to pay off all the debts. Even the most mediocre economist in the world figured that out a long time ago.

Who am I even talking to?

Who convinced you all to be terrified of money issuance? Even the old Republic of Venice issued its own currency! They were smart enough to realize that a state needs to be able to issue money.

As tangible assets grow, the money supply has to grow too. Otherwise, we're just playing a game of poker economics. Statistics back this up. There are fewer top-tier poker players, yet they hold more and more of the total wealth. That's called wealth stratification. The wealthy know how to cover their costs and still save. That surplus comes at the expense of those who can't—not necessarily because they don't want to, but because they theoretically cannot even cover their basic expenses or reach a break-even point.. You can't just opt out of this by choice; you need the specific knowledge required to navigate such a system.

Jerry Williams41 said:And then there’s this whole idea about primary money issuance going straight to those who need it most—give me a break. Honestly, I’d be the first one lining up to become a homeless person just so the government would hand me primary currency to live on without having to lift a finger. Pretty soon, you’d have everyone else doing the exact same thing, and before you know it, nobody is actually working anymore, and the entire system just collapses into total chaos. It’s the same downward spiral you see in those old Stalinist regimes.

I suppose I can admit to having read through your suggestions, which explains why I ended up being wrong. But I won't take any responsibility for reading them in the first place, because, frankly, there isn't a shred of logic to be found in them.

Who actually said the government is going to give money to people who refuse to work? It would only go to those truly unable to work, and even then, only enough to cover their basic costs. For them to survive, someone else has to produce the food and everything else, and that influx of cash basically acts as a global profit for the state derived from that actual productive labor.

Even welfare shouldn't be handed out without some kind of socially useful work involved. The main rule should be simple: anyone capable of working cannot get money without working—no work, no money. We’re obviously excluding retirees who have already put in their time and children.

In my own family, we wouldn't reward the able-bodied members if they just ate without contributing. Why not apply that to the country? The reward is money earned through labor. For example, you give money to your grandparents, and they use it to buy food from the able-bodied members of the family. That money they earned is essentially their accumulated useful labor within the family unit. Is it fair that the people who worked the hardest and produced the most have the most? Yes. But that isn't how it works now. In our current situation, grandparents end up going into debt (through the government) just to make that happen, and that's why the state falls into endless debt.

Lisa Bennett96 said:The Federal Reserve was actually established back in 1913. ☕

Since when?

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.

Politicians don't work for banks; they just realize that banks and telecom companies make up half of the entire US budget. You even aware of that? ☕

Maria Thomas48 said:Since when?

Bank for International Settlements, man.

So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

The fix is actually pretty simple, I guess: you fund newly created value exclusively through primary issuance, not through loans (debt money), even if those loans come with a 0% interest rate.

Take the Interstate Highway System, for example. Nobody can argue that building the American Interstate Highway System isn't creating new value—real, lasting value. So, the government, acting as the investor and future owner, should just issue new money proportional to that investment's value. That’s the newly created value right there.
Instead, we're stuck with this system forced upon us, which Robert McNamara defends like his life depends on it. It basically means financing the value created within our own borders by issuing debt to other countries under whatever terms they decide to dictate to us.
It’s a trap. A total vicious cycle. Here's why: 1. You take out loans during construction, but most of that cash just flows out to suppliers for raw materials. Only a small slice actually hits local pockets through wages (assuming you're using an American workforce), and then the sales tax just loops back into the system anyway. Since these are long-term investments meant to pay off eventually, you end up having to take out *more* loans just to service the old ones. And surprise, surprise—those are usually from foreign lenders who charge even more, and this time, none of that borrowed money stays in our economy. It all goes straight back to some foreign bank or country, plus interest. We're already drowning in double interest payments, so the returns on the actual investment aren't enough to cover the debt. So, step three: you borrow just to pay the interest. And the principal? Forget it. We've got multiple layers of principal hanging over us now, a permanent legacy that our kids or even our grandkids will be stuck paying off.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

The whole system where import foreign exchange is sourced through credit, and then that money is multiplied through more loans/earnings and later used for imports and burning through that credit-based cash, creates a totally unrealistic picture of reality. Wasting unearned money happens every single time we buy more from overseas than we export.

I've been looking into Islamic banking and from what I can tell: it's the same crap in different packaging. I mean, who are we kidding? Bankers work for profit. Like everyone else. The difference is now they can just "simulate" the issuance of money.

I don't think you all quite grasp that it's impossible for everyone to be financially successful because the conditions simply aren't there. We can be hardworking, innovative, work 16 hours a day, or even if every single person works hard, we can't reach a point where everyone is paid fairly for their value if someone else in that circle manages to grab some sort of surplus for themselves.
That's what I wrote in my article "From problem to solution." We shouldn't turn a blind eye to this because it's happening and it's going to keep happening. Bankruptcy won't skip anyone. Not the government, not the banks, and none of the others. It's just a matter of time.

Jamie Newman5 said:Politicians don't work for banks; they just realize that banks and telecom companies make up half of the entire US budget. You even aware of that? ☕

Everyone here is being way too shortsighted. You can't just fill a national budget solely through taxes. It’s an illusion created when banks expand the money supply or when we see massive foreign investment inflows—take Ireland, for example. But both loans and investments end up becoming even bigger liabilities down the road!!!

Read up on what a balanced federal budget actually looks like. There's this ridiculous example provided that shows how pointless it all is, especially considering how futile the Greek plan was to resolve their debts.

If you quit before you even get off the starting block, well, obviously you aren't going to get anywhere. I mean, everything you're saying sounds less like an excuse for why things aren't working and more like just sitting around feeling sorry for yourself (and, honestly, just waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting while we all get a paycheck). Don't get me wrong, but you're talking nonsense here. Obviously, the budget gets filled through taxes, and yeah, it's totally possible for everyone to make good money and live a decent life.

Lisa Bennett96 said:Bank for International Settlements, man.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter, that isn't how it works. It would state they take loans from some global central bank whenever they run short on cash. But that’s just not necessary. Any central bank in the world can issue as much money as they want in the form of credit. It doesn't matter if it's just one single central bank doing it. The real difference is the ability to control everyone through debt from one centralized hub. No guns needed, no nukes, no soldiers. Just bureaucrats. Kind of like the European Union.

Melissa Rivera5 said:If you quit before you even get off the starting block, well, obviously you aren't going to get anywhere. I mean, everything you're saying sounds less like an excuse for why things aren't working and more like just sitting around feeling sorry for yourself (and, honestly, just waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting while we all get a paycheck). Don't get me wrong, but you're talking nonsense here. Obviously, the budget gets filled through taxes, and yeah, it's totally possible for everyone to make good money and live a decent life.

You can always prove that theory wrong. Just take one isolated country, and fill it with a Baker, a farmer, and a Miller. The Baker works a steady job in public service. The Miller processes grain into flour.

Now just pick any starting point and try to create prosperity for everyone using nothing but a constant, fixed amount of money. Then you'll see exactly what happens with an idea like yours.

If that example isn't clear enough, just add a bank to the mix—maybe just one employee who also owns the whole thing. Show me how their wallets look year after year. If you actually pull it off, let me know. Because none of them are actually producing anything new here. They could work sixteen hours a day and it wouldn't change a thing.

I don't quite follow. You're suggesting development should be funded through money printing rather than credit? Even if you increase the supply, the total value remains the same—you're just diluting the value of every dollar in circulation.