Upcoming elections and the next Cabinet's economic platforms

Carl Foster8 said:We’re facing a double crisis here.

It's a combination of the structural shift from socialism to capitalism and this massive global economic meltdown.

Given the circumstances, I guess it's hard to expect any entrepreneur to take out investment loans when interest rates are this high. On top of that, labor costs are just too high to remain competitive. Rates are sky-high because the government and a handful of massive corporations are gobbling up most of the credit. The risk is just too much; with the way things are being run, you can't even predict what happens three months from now, let alone five or ten years down the road.

Would you really bet everything on the line under these conditions?
Would you hand even more money to the people who caused this mess in the first place?

I agree with the facts presented, but I always stop right at the
facts. That’s a passive way to look at problems.
The risk is huge and nobody knows what tomorrow looks like, or what the next five to ten years will bring. Period.
The circumstances are what they are—should we invest in anything? Probably not.
Should we give money to the people who dragged us here? Probably not.

So, what's next? Who is this person or group that’s actually going to fix this? Because surprisingly, even those
expected to provide a solution are spinning the same old story, acting as if they don't see themselves
as the architects of future economic policy or the leaders of some grand
economic project meant to pull us out of this hole.

I remember former Prime Minister Ivo Sanders saying at a press
conference, after presenting an economic plan that basically boiled down to
cutting spending: "If this plan fails, may God help us."

I get that he meant well, trying to help the public one way or another,
but it feels a bit pessimistic—like throwing up your hands
before the fight is over instead of looking for a new path.
I just hope this current or any future Government doesn't operate by that same
logic. I try to be an optimist.

Well, "Probably not" is the answer you were looking for, which is definitely the logical response given the situation.
But that’s the difference between a pessimist and an optimist, between a passive stance and an active one, and that’s what bothers me.
As entrepreneurs, we now know how we invested and where we messed up; clearly, we can't
do it alone without oversight, which leads to this:
If you ask me (the Government) for a loan, but your investment is unlikely to survive,
then I’m going to have to control you. That’s one way.
The second way is to skip the control part and just buy the business myself—much like how I once
sold one—so I can invest directly and manage it.
It’s becoming obvious that the State needs to secure its own interests
within this market game, which is nothing other than setting up
a new system called State capitalism.
That’s the system used by Germans, French people, English people, and so on.
The principle is simple: companies that are "golden geese" or vital to the stability of the Country
are owned by the State. Everything else—services, small businesses, retail, etc.—
can be privatized when a strong State, backed by robust laws,
dictates and sets the terms that everyone has to follow.

Personally, I have a better name for this new system that isn't weighed down by
ideological labels like feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or communism.
Simply put: "The State System of Governance and Management."

@
Ashley Collins4
It wasn't the government issuing loans to companies; it was the banks. Banks don't just give money away—they lend it at relatively high interest rates. We're primarily talking about small and medium-sized businesses here, which are basically the backbone of the economy.

The entrepreneurs didn't make the wrong investment decisions; the government did:
- Infrastructure projects—highways with incredibly low daily traffic and no clear timeline for when the investment actually pays off.
- Construction sector subsidies via credit incentives—and who actually benefits from those housing savings subsidies? Real estate is a textbook example of bad investment, but these were investments encouraged by the state.

State capitalism
- Loss-making entities like Duke Energy suddenly start turning a profit (a political decision, maybe? Another government blunder?)

Eventually, even the most productive assets end up in the hands of whoever is holding the knife, and soon enough, there's nothing left to show for it...

Look, Ashley Collins4, I haven't jumped into these debates much, but what you're saying is nonsense. The people posting here actually understand economics and macroeconomics. In this crisis, they have lost far more than just a mediocre job or a few thousand dollars. During the 2008 crash, I personally was losing $3333 a day, and I am just a small player. So please, spare us the sermons and listen to what others are telling you. They are speaking sense, unlike your rambling. Whether you call it State capitalism, socialism, or whatever else, the government is a poor manager. It is proven by billions of examples, and it proves itself every single day. Stop comparing us to the Chinese or the Japanese or even Martians. We are Americans, we function as Americans, and you either take it or leave it.

Privatization is a good and desirable thing. When it is carried out transparently, publicly, and legally, it is always welcome. All these companies currently under government control are going to fail. I guarantee it. It is only a matter of time before some idiot sits in the director's chair because of political connections. Managing state-owned companies relies on political loyalty and political gain. Managing private companies relies on economic and financial profit. These two goals are almost always in contradiction and should never be mixed. Just as you shouldn't mix the military with politics; countries that do so inevitably collapse.

There is nothing to do here but adapt and live with it. Find a high-demand profession, educate yourself in that field, become competitive in the labor market, and one day, once you have accumulated enough knowledge and capital, start your own private business. Then, others will work for you. As for those lectures on State capitalism, save them for the guys at the local pub.

Regarding the economic program for the next administration, I believe the most effective approach would be to implement raw, unfiltered capitalism for a period of two or three years. During this timeframe, environmental impact would remain manageable, and more importantly, the public would finally realize that the era of guaranteed housing and universal employment is long gone.

Once this national "awakening" has occurred, we can return capitalism to more reasonable boundaries suited to our specific economy. If we don't, any attempt by any government to fix the system or engineer economic growth will inevitably fail due to the human element. You could build the most advanced factory in America, complete with perfect specifications and an elite board of directors, but if the workers lack basic training and expect the machines to do all the work for them, the entire enterprise will collapse.

In this recessionary climate, banks are basically badgering the Government to bail them out and cover their losses. When does
that capital actually get loaned back to entrepreneurs? It doesn't happen here, which is
a massive mistake. Banks don't feel the market's ups and downs for the usual
reasons.
It’s not the Government's fault for investing. You have to build the interstate highways; the issue is that the subsequent
management was a complete disaster—just like what we see in construction, shipbuilding, and most other public
entities. These companies need to be moved under direct Government administration. Having one
less hand involved would guarantee better results.

What exactly did the Government do wrong? Why is Duke Energy operating at a profit???
We need to call that out. I can see where we're headed, but seeing it laid out like this, I
can hardly believe it.

The golden goose lays eggs all on its own; you just have to pick them up!!!
A cow should at least know how to help out. It seems nobody knows how to sell milk, nor electricity, nor oil,
nor medicine, nor mobile or landline phone service, and so on, and so forth.

Gregory Williams7, you’re clearly living in some fantasy land fueled by American liberal capitalism when
you claim everything needs to be privatized—not because it’s actually better, but just because it "has" to be, like it's some requirement of this
new world order we're all being forced into.
We're obviously just two sides of the same coin.
Your mindset is stuck on a downward spiral, just blindly following whatever
Mom or Dad tells you to do. Honestly, you're so blinded by that ideology that you can't even see
what's staring you right in the face: there are much better systems out there than this one.
It's unbelievable that you don't realize we've failed precisely because of the mistakes, the incompleteness, and the sheer
anarchy of the current system.

Ashley Collins4 said:In this recessionary climate, banks are basically badgering the Government to bail them out and cover their losses. When does
that capital actually get loaned back to entrepreneurs? It doesn't happen here, which is
a massive mistake. Banks don't feel the market's ups and downs for the usual
reasons.
It’s not the Government's fault for investing. You have to build the interstate highways; the issue is that the subsequent
management was a complete disaster—just like what we see in construction, shipbuilding, and most other public
entities. These companies need to be moved under direct Government administration. Having one
less hand involved would guarantee better results.

What exactly did the Government do wrong? Why is Duke Energy operating at a profit???
We need to call that out. I can see where we're headed, but seeing it laid out like this, I
can hardly believe it.

The golden goose lays eggs all on its own; you just have to pick them up!!!
A cow should at least know how to help out. It seems nobody knows how to sell milk, nor electricity, nor oil,
nor medicine, nor mobile or landline phone service, and so on, and so forth.

The Government covers losses from failing banks based on guarantees provided by the administration. $133 here. Banks hold very strong market positions and get rich off them, but nothing stops you from buying shares in those banks. That way, you become an owner.

Whether the highways should have been built or not is a separate debate. I'm specifically talking about low-yield areas like a coastal region. What exactly did you mean regarding the subsequent management of the highway???

Public enterprises are already under Government administration.

No, the Government's mistake is that Duke Energy operated at a loss for so many years, and then once things got critical and the "managers" faced court, Duke Energy suddenly became profitable. That is the Government error I am talking about.

Everything needs to be sold.

Carl Foster8 said:The Government covers losses from failing banks based on guarantees provided by the administration. $133 here. Banks hold very strong market positions and get rich off them, but nothing stops you from buying shares in those banks. That way, you become an owner.

Whether the highways should have been built or not is a separate debate. I'm specifically talking about low-yield areas like a coastal region. What exactly did you mean regarding the subsequent management of the highway???

Public enterprises are already under Government administration.

No, the Government's mistake is that Duke Energy operated at a loss for so many years, and then once things got critical and the "managers" faced court, Duke Energy suddenly became profitable. That is the Government error I am talking about.

Everything needs to be sold.

Banks have a massive safety net behind them that keeps them from sinking, not some vague
market position. Most banks are eighty percent foreign-owned, so
I have to ask: can you imagine a German person begging the US Government to cover his
losses and the wreckage left by a recession? And the recession happened, because production
in all the manufacturing plants was barely running a single shift, or small and medium
businesses were shutting down entirely.
Banks aren't getting paid back, and they aren't issuing new loans—whether to businesses
or citizens, for homes or anything else—if they had to act the way they do
in the US, England, Germany, or Italy, where the State covers operational costs
to keep credit flowing to a struggling economy, ideally with
lower interest rates. The English went as low as 1.5-2%.

That doesn't happen here, which is why foreign banks are a bottleneck in normal
commerce. They do the exact opposite, which makes sense if you think about it, because they work
for their own interests. When there's no money in the market, they hike interest rates on new
loans. By limiting credit through higher rates, they think they can maintain
their previous liquidity. Sure, that just drives more clients away, and that's where the
economic shutdown begins.
Simply put, there is no money in circulation. Money is just gathering dust in bank
vaults, at the Fed, or tied up in various funds and frozen assets,
but it isn't circulating in the market.
We need to find a way to get that money moving again, or have the Federal Reserve
start doing something it has never done: directly lending to the economy, just to get started.

The main lever for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see, say, 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you'll see maybe 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.

There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via boards of directors.
Let's ignore the boards for a second.

What is the State supposed to do in a case like the Duke Energy mess? Just let it collapse?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why we can't function without it.
These are the cash cows that the State relies on. We can't allow the US
to run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
I want to build a tank so I can defend this country tomorrow. Everything on that path
—from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and the research
institutes where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must stay in the hands of government agencies.
You can't negotiate with a private guy named Jim about raw ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic components and radars; otherwise, we'll just end up importing everything.
Do you see my point?

Ashley Collins4 said:Banks have a massive safety net behind them that keeps them from sinking, not some vague
market position. Most banks are eighty percent foreign-owned, so
I have to ask: can you imagine a German person begging the US Government to cover his
losses and the wreckage left by a recession? And the recession happened, because production
in all the manufacturing plants was barely running a single shift, or small and medium
businesses were shutting down entirely.
Banks aren't getting paid back, and they aren't issuing new loans—whether to businesses
or citizens, for homes or anything else—if they had to act the way they do
in the US, England, Germany, or Italy, where the State covers operational costs
to keep credit flowing to a struggling economy, ideally with
lower interest rates. The English went as low as 1.5-2%.

That doesn't happen here, which is why foreign banks are a bottleneck in normal
commerce. They do the exact opposite, which makes sense if you think about it, because they work
for their own interests. When there's no money in the market, they hike interest rates on new
loans. By limiting credit through higher rates, they think they can maintain
their previous liquidity. Sure, that just drives more clients away, and that's where the
economic shutdown begins.
Simply put, there is no money in circulation. Money is just gathering dust in bank
vaults, at the Fed, or tied up in various funds and frozen assets,
but it isn't circulating in the market.
We need to find a way to get that money moving again, or have the Federal Reserve
start doing something it has never done: directly lending to the economy, just to get started.

The main lever for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see, say, 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you'll see maybe 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.

There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via boards of directors.
Let's ignore the boards for a second.

What is the State supposed to do in a case like the Duke Energy mess? Just let it collapse?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why we can't function without it.
These are the cash cows that the State relies on. We can't allow the US
to run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
I want to build a tank so I can defend this country tomorrow. Everything on that path
—from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and the research
institutes where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must stay in the hands of government agencies.
You can't negotiate with a private guy named Jim about raw ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic components and radars; otherwise, we'll just end up importing everything.
Do you see my point?

A German person doesn't need to beg the government; the government gave them a guarantee $133 that deposits are secure.
Interestingly, I used to think the money had vanished because we had a trade deficit—basically, banks were
issuing loans that we just spent. If we had a floating exchange rate, the value of the currency would have dropped. Since we have a fixed rate,
the value didn't drop, but the quantity certainly shrank.

The main metric for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you might only see 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.

There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via oversight boards.
Let's set aside those boards for a moment.

What is the Government supposed to do in the case of a Duke Energy type crisis? Let it fail?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why you can't function without it.
These are the golden geese the country relies on. You can't let the US
run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
Personally, I want to build a tank so I can defend the country tomorrow. Everything on that path—
from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and research institutes
where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must be in the hands of government agencies.
You can't sit around negotiating with a private guy like Jim about ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic circuits. We shouldn't have to import everything.
Do you see my point?

You're spinning the argument, and not very well.

Projects like the Dalmatian coast infrastructure shouldn't be handled haphazardly.
You need to know the maintenance costs and the vehicle volume required beforehand to ensure a road is profitable and actually builds wealth for American citizens.

Even with Duke Energy, you managed to twist the argument.

That example just highlights how little some people care about a company they don't actually own. Plus, there’s definitely some theft involved.
In the private sector, you just don't see situations where an owner would intentionally act against their own interests.

Carl Foster8 said:A German person doesn't need to beg the government; the government gave them a guarantee $133 that deposits are secure.
Interestingly, I used to think the money had vanished because we had a trade deficit—basically, banks were
issuing loans that we just spent. If we had a floating exchange rate, the value of the currency would have dropped. Since we have a fixed rate,
the value didn't drop, but the quantity certainly shrank.

The main metric for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you might only see 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.

There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via oversight boards.
Let's set aside those boards for a moment.

What is the Government supposed to do in the case of a Duke Energy type crisis? Let it fail?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why you can't function without it.
These are the golden geese the country relies on. You can't let the US
run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
Personally, I want to build a tank so I can defend the country tomorrow. Everything on that path—
from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and research institutes
where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must be in the hands of government agencies.
You can't sit around negotiating with a private guy like Jim about ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic circuits. We shouldn't have to import everything.
Do you see my point?

You're spinning the argument, and not very well.

Projects like the Dalmatian coast infrastructure shouldn't be handled haphazardly.
You need to know the maintenance costs and the vehicle volume required beforehand to ensure a road is profitable and actually builds wealth for American citizens.

Even with Duke Energy, you managed to twist the argument.

That example just highlights how little some people care about a company they don't actually own. Plus, there’s definitely some theft involved.
In the private sector, you just don't see situations where an owner would intentionally act against their own interests.

Those deposits don't matter. I mean, let's be real—not a single major bank in this country has gone under, so why worry?
I see how it is. It’s never going to change, which is exactly why we’re the ones getting screwed. The big banks stay rock solid—they don't deal with crises—while everyone else gets left in the dirt.
Everything just fell apart. Nobody actually knows where things went sideways, so we're all just sitting here waiting for better days. Who knows?
Where exactly is this change supposed to come from? If nothing actually happens, then nothing changes.

The cash crunch isn't just one thing; it’s got layers. But if you want the root cause? It’s all about "lending money at interest."
The problem goes right to the core. Hypothetically speaking, nobody on the market even has a single dollar.
The Federal Reserve handles the initial funding for the country and then distributes the currency through the banks.
We're talking about massive amounts of cash—say, 500 billion in currency—just being dumped onto the market all at once.
Interest rates? Between the Federal Reserve and the banks all lining up at, say, 10%... the market better find a way to pay back that principal.
Add another 10% to that principal. It’s obvious the capital is split up and we're talking about...
It’s the principle of the thing, even if the amount is small. The real question is: who’s actually going to pay back that 10% they physically took?
No way. That 10% market share is just being carved out by taking it from you and me. So, who's actually winning here?
He’s probably just going to get them from someone else anyway. You've got those steam vacuum companies right there, and then there's Kaya.
You’ve got to pay up—electricity, water, taxes, and all that other stuff.
What's happening on the ground? For starters, that pathetic loser who keeps stumbling into those famous circles...
10%. That money doesn't actually exist. Nobody is out there printing it.
All those interest payments just end up straight into the bank's pockets. The people running the show keep doing exactly what they're doing, and we'll just end up right back where we started, stuck in the same endless cycle.
10%. Little by little, we're just draining the market of liquidity. Just saying—everyone's doing it.
Whether it’s a tax hike, an increase in electricity rates, or some new levy on just about anything else—it’s all the same story. Every time they raise the price of anything, it's just another way to squeeze us.
Doing the exact same thing.
Who's actually following this game? Honestly, the Federal Reserve should be the one stepping in to handle this mess. How exactly do they plan to fix it?
So, they could just print more dollars to cover the total interest for the year. But then you've got the Federal Reserve to deal with.
I banned myself from doing that. That’s basically why there’s no cash left in the market.

I'm not changing my arguments; they just don't line up with yours.

Well, I guess I actually learned something from that guy.

I think there’s something much deeper going on here than just the government failing to look out for its own companies.

Sure, private business isn't going to fight its own interests, but they’re definitely going to push their own agenda hard.
When does it actually start clashing with the national interest? Because at this point, it’s pretty obvious.
It seems like nobody can see—or maybe they just don't have a clue—what actually constitutes the national interest.
It looks like private interests are slowly but surely starting to outweigh the national interest.

Carl Foster8 said:A German person doesn't need to beg the government; the government gave them a guarantee $133 that deposits are secure.
Interestingly, I used to think the money had vanished because we had a trade deficit—basically, banks were
issuing loans that we just spent. If we had a floating exchange rate, the value of the currency would have dropped. Since we have a fixed rate,
the value didn't drop, but the quantity certainly shrank.

The main metric for managing a highway is the toll price.
If the price for a route like New York to Philly is $3.25, then you might see 100,000
cars a day. If it's $33, you might only see 10,000.
Raise it to $167 and you won't see a single car on the road.

There are state-owned and public enterprises managed via oversight boards.
Let's set aside those boards for a moment.

What is the Government supposed to do in the case of a Duke Energy type crisis? Let it fail?
That example shows exactly what the role of the State is and why you can't function without it.
These are the golden geese the country relies on. You can't let the US
run out of electricity, water, communications, or gas.
Personally, I want to build a tank so I can defend the country tomorrow. Everything on that path—
from iron ore mines and heavy industry to steel mills, manufacturing plants, and research institutes
where tanks are designed, plus electronics and so on—must be in the hands of government agencies.
You can't sit around negotiating with a private guy like Jim about ore, or George about molds,
or cannon barrels and electronic circuits. We shouldn't have to import everything.
Do you see my point?

You're spinning the argument, and not very well.

Projects like the Dalmatian coast infrastructure shouldn't be handled haphazardly.
You need to know the maintenance costs and the vehicle volume required beforehand to ensure a road is profitable and actually builds wealth for American citizens.

Even with Duke Energy, you managed to twist the argument.

That example just highlights how little some people care about a company they don't actually own. Plus, there’s definitely some theft involved.
In the private sector, you just don't see situations where an owner would intentionally act against their own interests.

Those deposits don't matter. I mean, not a single major bank in this country has gone under yet, so what's the big deal?
I see how it is. It’s just not happening. And that’s exactly why we’re getting screwed. The banks stay perfectly stable—it’s never a crisis for them—while everyone else takes the hit.
Everything just collapsed. Nobody seems to have a clue where things went sideways, so we’re all just sitting around waiting for better days. Who knows?
Where exactly is this supposed to come from? If nothing actually happens, nothing changes.

There isn't just one reason why cash is drying up. The root cause? It's all about "lending money at interest."
The whole thing is flawed from the ground up. Hypothetically speaking, nobody in the market actually holds a single cent.
The Federal Reserve handles the initial funding for the country and manages the distribution of the currency through the banks.
We're talking about the sheer volume of currency being dumped into the market—say, $500 billion—all at once.
Interest rates, the Federal Reserve, and banks all lined up at 10%, for example. Basically, the market just needs enough peace and quiet to pay back that principal.
Add another 10% to that principal. It’s pretty obvious the capital is split up and we're looking at...
It’s small change, sure, but it’s about the principle. The real question is: who's actually going to pay back that 10% they physically took?
No chance. That 10% market share is just being carved out by taking from you and me. So, who’s actually winning here?
He’ll probably end up getting them from someone else anyway. Between those steam vacuum companies and whatever Kaya is up to, he's running out of options.
You’ve gotta pay up—electricity, water, taxes, and all that other stuff.
Whatever happens, happens. But for starters, that poor soul who walks right into those famous traps... what a mess.
10%? That money doesn't actually exist. Nobody is out there printing it.
All that interest just flows straight back into the bank. The people running the show keep winning, and we just get sucked right back into the next cycle.
10%. Bit by bit, we're drying up the market liquidity. Just saying—everyone's feeling it.
Whether it’s a tax hike, utility bills, or some new random levy on basically everything—any price increase at all is just more of the same.
Doing the exact same thing.
Who’s actually keeping track of this game? Honestly, the Federal Reserve should be stepping in to handle this, but how exactly would they do that? Just print more dollars to cover a year's worth of interest? I don't think so. But then again, the Federal Reserve...
I’ve banned myself from doing that. That right there is exactly why there's no cash flowing through the market.

I’m not changing my points; they just don't align with yours.

Well, I guess I learned a thing or two from that Dalmatian person.

I think there’s something much deeper going on here than just the government failing to look out for its own companies.

Private enterprise isn't going to act against its own interests, but don't be fooled—it’s definitely going to push its own agenda hard.
When does it start clashing with the national interest? Because, let's be honest, it’s already obvious.
It seems like nobody actually sees—or even understands—what the national interest really is.

Ashley Collins4 said:Those deposits don't matter. I mean, not a single major bank in this country has gone under yet, so what's the big deal?
I see how it is. It’s just not happening. And that’s exactly why we’re getting screwed. The banks stay perfectly stable—it’s never a crisis for them—while everyone else takes the hit.
Everything just collapsed. Nobody seems to have a clue where things went sideways, so we’re all just sitting around waiting for better days. Who knows?
Where exactly is this supposed to come from? If nothing actually happens, nothing changes.

There isn't just one reason why cash is drying up. The root cause? It's all about "lending money at interest."
The whole thing is flawed from the ground up. Hypothetically speaking, nobody in the market actually holds a single cent.
The Federal Reserve handles the initial funding for the country and manages the distribution of the currency through the banks.
We're talking about the sheer volume of currency being dumped into the market—say, $500 billion—all at once.
Interest rates, the Federal Reserve, and banks all lined up at 10%, for example. Basically, the market just needs enough peace and quiet to pay back that principal.
Add another 10% to that principal. It’s pretty obvious the capital is split up and we're looking at...
It’s small change, sure, but it’s about the principle. The real question is: who's actually going to pay back that 10% they physically took?
No chance. That 10% market share is just being carved out by taking from you and me. So, who’s actually winning here?
He’ll probably end up getting them from someone else anyway. Between those steam vacuum companies and whatever Kaya is up to, he's running out of options.
You’ve gotta pay up—electricity, water, taxes, and all that other stuff.
Whatever happens, happens. But for starters, that poor soul who walks right into those famous traps... what a mess.
10%? That money doesn't actually exist. Nobody is out there printing it.
All that interest just flows straight back into the bank. The people running the show keep winning, and we just get sucked right back into the next cycle.
10%. Bit by bit, we're drying up the market liquidity. Just saying—everyone's feeling it.
Whether it’s a tax hike, utility bills, or some new random levy on basically everything—any price increase at all is just more of the same.
Doing the exact same thing.
Who’s actually keeping track of this game? Honestly, the Federal Reserve should be stepping in to handle this, but how exactly would they do that? Just print more dollars to cover a year's worth of interest? I don't think so. But then again, the Federal Reserve...
I’ve banned myself from doing that. That right there is exactly why there's no cash flowing through the market.

I’m not changing my points; they just don't align with yours.

Well, I guess I learned a thing or two from that Dalmatian person.

I think there’s something much deeper going on here than just the government failing to look out for its own companies.

Private enterprise isn't going to act against its own interests, but don't be fooled—it’s definitely going to push its own agenda hard.
When does it start clashing with the national interest? Because, let's be honest, it’s already obvious.
It seems like nobody actually sees—or even understands—what the national interest really is.

It seems from your explanation that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how the banking system actually functions. Beyond the Federal Reserve, money is generated by all commercial banks and by the government through budget deficits. The interest charged by the Federal Reserve serves as a mechanism to pull excess liquidity out of the system. There are numerous ways to print money; the true science lies in knowing how to extract that surplus from the economy.

Ashley Collins4, you truly have no clue what you are talking about, yet you insist on making a point with every single post you write.

Money is merely a medium used to exchange goods. Money itself is not a commodity. It is nothing more than simple paper which, aside from being used for payments, could just as easily be used to light a cigarette or serve as toilet paper—and not particularly pleasant toilet paper at that.

The moment you grasp this reality, you will understand why a 10% interest rate isn't the key to repaying a loan; the real necessity lies in increasing production.
The Federal Reserve protects people like you from yourselves by managing the exchange rate. Take my word for it.

Carl Morales9 said:It seems from your explanation that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how the banking system actually functions. Beyond the Federal Reserve, money is generated by all commercial banks and by the government through budget deficits. The interest charged by the Federal Reserve serves as a mechanism to pull excess liquidity out of the system. There are numerous ways to print money; the true science lies in knowing how to extract that surplus from the economy.

What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

Money = debt... deficit = ?

Money is also "printed" through multiplication.

Gregory Williams7 said:Ashley Collins4, you truly have no clue what you are talking about, yet you insist on making a point with every single post you write.

Money is merely a medium used to exchange goods. Money itself is not a commodity. It is nothing more than simple paper which, aside from being used for payments, could just as easily be used to light a cigarette or serve as toilet paper—and not particularly pleasant toilet paper at that.

The moment you grasp this reality, you will understand why a 10% interest rate isn't the key to repaying a loan; the real necessity lies in increasing production.
The Federal Reserve protects people like you from yourselves by managing the exchange rate. Take my word for it.

Gregory Williams, you're becoming a bore with this nonsense. If money is only useful to you for lighting
cigarettes or rolling them up to smoke, then go ahead and smoke it.

Money is a tool used to buy something of value. If you have it, you can buy it. The logic is dead simple: if you don't have it, you can't
buy anything. PERIOD.

Look, a manufacturer might have all sorts of motives to produce
as much as possible, but they can't produce those quantities if they can't afford the raw materials,
the supplies, or the inputs needed to build anything in the first place. NO MONEY, NO PRODUCT.

Economics rests on two basic pillars: goods and money. Through
trade, they act as opposites during a transaction. I give you money; you give me the goods.
It's elementary school logic: if there's less money circulating, consumption drops,
meaning people stop buying things, and that's how the economic system starts to collapse.
That manufacturer I mentioned earlier? They can't produce what they planned because they haven't
collected their payments. They haven't sold the goods and secured the capital
needed to restart the cycle or scale up production.
The medicine is obvious now.

I wouldn't recommend smoking, just to save you from yourself.

Ashley Collins4 As Ashley Collins4 points out:
I find myself wondering which institution provided your training before you stepped into the banking sector, because looking at this particular logic, one can't help but feel a bit puzzled.
I find myself wondering about the true nature and purpose behind the words you choose to put forward.

I feel that my previous points were quite elementary, perhaps even something one would expect a child to grasp upon finishing grade school. It seems like common sense to me, much like understanding how a basic thermostat regulates the temperature in a home. Since you seem to disagree, I would be genuinely curious to learn about your own academic background—what specific economic institutions did you attend, and which authoritative texts or literature could you point to that might support your particular perspective?

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

Think of a deficit simply as the gap between what comes in and what goes out. Since the federal government is responsible for covering all its obligations, you might wonder where that extra cash actually originates. A surplus works the exact same way, just with the roles reversed—it’s when revenue outpaces spending. Essentially, when the government runs a surplus, it acts like a vacuum pulling liquidity out of the economy, whereas a deficit allows it to act more like a pump, injecting capital back into the system. 🤣

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

Well, I am certainly glad to see that you have finally grasped the core of the matter.

Ashley Collins4 As expressed by:
Printing isn't just a single-track process where you're limited to one specific method; rather, it's much like how there are various ways to navigate a highway, though in a professional print shop, everything centers around one specialized machine that handles the heavy lifting.
It truly makes one wonder who exactly is tasked with the printing of our money; if we were to approach the situation with real efficiency, those facilities ought to be operating around the clock in three full shifts.

Haha... You seem to be under the impression that all the money circulating within the system is merely the physical paper cash we carry around in our wallets. 🤣

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

This particular advice is truly excellent and is a practice I personally swear by, so I think you might find it quite helpful to adopt it as well.

Carl Morales9 said:

Ashley Collins4 As Ashley Collins4 points out:
I find myself wondering which institution provided your training before you stepped into the banking sector, because looking at this particular logic, one can't help but feel a bit puzzled.
I find myself wondering about the true nature and purpose behind the words you choose to put forward.

I feel that my previous points were quite elementary, perhaps even something one would expect a child to grasp upon finishing grade school. It seems like common sense to me, much like understanding how a basic thermostat regulates the temperature in a home. Since you seem to disagree, I would be genuinely curious to learn about your own academic background—what specific economic institutions did you attend, and which authoritative texts or literature could you point to that might support your particular perspective?

Think of a deficit simply as the gap between what comes in and what goes out. Since the federal government is responsible for covering all its obligations, you might wonder where that extra cash actually originates. A surplus works the exact same way, just with the roles reversed—it’s when revenue outpaces spending. Essentially, when the government runs a surplus, it acts like a vacuum pulling liquidity out of the economy, whereas a deficit allows it to act more like a pump, injecting capital back into the system. 🤣

Well, I am certainly glad to see that you have finally grasped the core of the matter.

Ashley Collins4 As expressed by:
Printing isn't just a single-track process where you're limited to one specific method; rather, it's much like how there are various ways to navigate a highway, though in a professional print shop, everything centers around one specialized machine that handles the heavy lifting.
It truly makes one wonder who exactly is tasked with the printing of our money; if we were to approach the situation with real efficiency, those facilities ought to be operating around the clock in three full shifts.

Haha... You seem to be under the impression that all the money circulating within the system is merely the physical paper cash we carry around in our wallets. 🤣

This particular advice is truly excellent and is a practice I personally swear by, so I think you might find it quite helpful to adopt it as well.

Deficit and surplus of what? The federal budget? That's where we differ, because the Government
either pulls money out of or pumps it back into the system. We know how they pull it out, but how they pump it
back in is anyone's guess—maybe cutting taxes so they take less, leaving
more in the system. But that isn't a solution, because people look at the system as something separate,
like "them" versus "us." They don't see that WE ARE ALL SWIMMING IN THE SAME POOL OF
MONEY!!!
If there is no money overall, then there's no money for you or me. We
can pump it in, suck it out, or move it from one empty pocket to another
all we want, but nothing changes. In fact, it can only get worse.

Where does the money come from? The money printer!!!

All the money in the system is either physical paper or, through various methods like checks, cards,
and transfers, it's all based on a digital ledger moving from account to account. To move money from your account,
you first have to have actual funds in there to begin with.

Ashley Collins4 said:Deficit and surplus of what? The federal budget? That's where we differ, because the Government
either pulls money out of or pumps it back into the system. We know how they pull it out, but how they pump it
back in is anyone's guess—maybe cutting taxes so they take less, leaving
more in the system. But that isn't a solution, because people look at the system as something separate,
like "them" versus "us." They don't see that WE ARE ALL SWIMMING IN THE SAME POOL OF
MONEY!!!
If there is no money overall, then there's no money for you or me. We
can pump it in, suck it out, or move it from one empty pocket to another
all we want, but nothing changes. In fact, it can only get worse.

Where does the money come from? The money printer!!!

All the money in the system is either physical paper or, through various methods like checks, cards,
and transfers, it's all based on a digital ledger moving from account to account. To move money from your account,
you first have to have actual funds in there to begin with.

Just Google "Fiat currency"

Carl Foster8 said:Money = debt... deficit = ?

Money is also "printed" through multiplication.

In closed loops.