The Financial System and Money Supply

Gregory Williams7 said:I disagree. I understand how the system works, and quite frankly, I have no need for its assistance. For those who struggle to grasp these mechanics, however, such guidance is essential. But knowledge comes at a price. It takes a full year at a business school to truly master it. $1667The postgraduate tuition is $3,000. If someone wants to pay it, that is their prerogative. I have already explained how things work at a forum level. You seem unable to grasp the concept. Pay for your degree first. Only then can we have a conversation.

It is a clear demonstration that your argument lacks foundation. The financial system—complete with inflation and interest rates—has existed since the very invention of currency, and it hasn't collapsed yet. Therefore, one of us must be mistaken. Which one is it?

I'm certainly no expert on these things, but I was just sitting here wondering... what exactly was going on over in the USA lately?...

The situation in the USA was nothing less than a systematic dismantling of the economy at every single level. Profitable companies that served as the backbone of local employment were sold off and quite literally stripped down for scrap metal.

On the other hand, the entire world faced identical circumstances, yet nothing changed.

So, I must ask: what happened when money was printed in Germany? In the former Soviet Union? In Russia? Even in the Roman Empire? There are a billion similar examples out there...

Gregory Williams7 said:The situation in the USA was nothing less than a systematic dismantling of the economy at every single level. Profitable companies that served as the backbone of local employment were sold off and quite literally stripped down for scrap metal.

On the other hand, the entire world faced identical circumstances, yet nothing changed.

So, I must ask: what happened when money was printed in Germany? In the former Soviet Union? In Russia? Even in the Roman Empire? There are a billion similar examples out there...

I’m telling you, there is eventually an end point, no matter how we choose to look at it...

It's likely the same for this system, too—it probably has an end, it's just that since we're just tiny ants, it feels like it goes on forever. To a bacterium, the whole world seems infinite, yet we know perfectly well that it's finite 😉

Gregory Williams7 said:I disagree. I understand how the system works, and quite frankly, I have no need for its assistance. For those who struggle to grasp these mechanics, however, such guidance is essential. But knowledge comes at a price. It takes a full year at a business school to truly master it. $1667The postgraduate tuition is $3,000. If someone wants to pay it, that is their prerogative. I have already explained how things work at a forum level. You seem unable to grasp the concept. Pay for your degree first. Only then can we have a conversation.

It is a clear demonstration that your argument lacks foundation. The financial system—complete with inflation and interest rates—has existed since the very invention of currency, and it hasn't collapsed yet. Therefore, one of us must be mistaken. Which one is it?

It sounds like you really charged people for that knowledge back in your college days since you're guarding it so closely.

And I see Pelé is guarding it too. Probably went to the same school—back when things weren't quite as expensive.

Actually, it's an old tactic. You can manipulate an uneducated crowd as much as you want.

You just haven't realized yet that there are people who manipulate the manipulators.

When it comes to building a sustainable financial system for the community under current conditions, all your professors would probably fail the test. It's the exact same issue I challenged you to solve in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. So, don't try to act smarter than them. You're just hurting your own credibility as a serious debater.

Just as a side note, I finished my degree with honors, but I don't go pointing people toward college every time they ask me a question.

Best regards

Maria Thomas48, let’s look at this logically. Imagine we agree to stop printing money entirely. Every single bit of labor and every product produced gets paid for fairly and immediately. We also agree that a portion of what we earn goes straight into savings, and only a fraction of those funds can be used for credit. To make it work, a community, a group of citizens, or even a private firm would commit their labor and earnings to support the Bank for Banks and its staff. Crucially, total earnings plus any credit taken cannot exceed the actual amount deposited in the bank.
Doesn't it seem like this would force everyone to actually work to earn something? Competition would naturally drive prices down, keeping the whole system sustainable. That’s the core of it; anything else is just pointless noise.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Maria Thomas48, let’s look at this logically. Imagine we agree to stop printing money entirely. Every single bit of labor and every product produced gets paid for fairly and immediately. We also agree that a portion of what we earn goes straight into savings, and only a fraction of those funds can be used for credit. To make it work, a community, a group of citizens, or even a private firm would commit their labor and earnings to support the Bank for Banks and its staff. Crucially, total earnings plus any credit taken cannot exceed the actual amount deposited in the bank.
Doesn't it seem like this would force everyone to actually work to earn something? Competition would naturally drive prices down, keeping the whole system sustainable. That’s the core of it; anything else is just pointless noise.

It’s all good. I mean, you’re talking about what real banking actually looks like. But let's be honest, real banking hits a massive wall when it comes to funding things like war zones or major natural disasters. It just doesn't work that way. You might manage to curb inflation, or maybe even trigger some deflation, but you aren't going to see rapid growth or any kind of quick development. And if you add those constant profiteers into the mix—the ones who just sit there collecting money—then a society like that isn't going to stay happy for very long.

I’d really like to see a specific Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Just a simple one with a few different subjects and a country over a ten-year stretch. Let's keep the money amount fixed—no imports, no inflation—just to see what kind of monetary prosperity we could actually achieve. And why focus on money? Because honestly, no amount of hard work matters if there isn't any cash available to pay for it. That’s the reality facing the US right now. There’s just a lack of liquidity. You could earn plenty if someone actually had the funds to pay you for your labor. But nobody has the money to pay you, and then it just becomes this endless loop.

If you look at countries as massive, singular entities, you start to see the math clearly. If one or more of them are running a surplus, then the others are inevitably running a deficit. That’s where the whole thing falls apart. Money is a finite resource. Everything else out there is just credit being issued that eventually has to be paid back with interest. People love to talk about how importing less than what you export is the solution, but that logic doesn't hold up. It’s physically impossible for everyone to do that at the same time.

You’re going to need an influx of new cash, and I don't mean through more loans. I keep trying to point this out so people will finally see that the entire system is built on a broken foundation, and because of that, most good people are being led straight toward a cliff. It’s simple math. Any company stays afloat as long as the money coming in exceeds the expenses. If one firm operates at a loss, they aren't just losing money—they are essentially creating profit for someone else. But you can't just turn every single business into a loser just to make sure others look successful. That’s how a poker game works. And in poker, there isn't a group of winners; there is only the one person who walks away with everything at the end. Is it really that hard to see who is positioned to take it all? It'll be the Bank for Banks, the Federal Reserve. They're the only ones with the power to issue money out of thin air and then demand that same money back, plus interest. Everyone needs that cash because it's the only way to pay for anything. Eventually, the commercial banks are going to go bust because they won't be able to collect what they're owed.

It’s basically like you're printing legal tender just to cover your own tracks. You bake the inflation right into the system, then turn around later and ask for an extra 3% just to make up for it. It’s a cycle. Just be careful—you're the one holding the printing press here. I can't help but wonder how that whole scheme actually plays out once enough time passes.

There’s one version where the masses show up armed with pitchforks and axes just to burn down your bakery. Then there’s the other version, where everyone hands over their property to you and becomes your slave just to work for some pennies. Personally, I think the first scenario looks more likely. For that second one to happen, you'd have to be living in a totally delusional utopia.

There’s an old saying that sticks with me. You can fool some people all of the time. You can fool everyone for a little while. But you just can't fool everybody all of the time. It's one of those things that stays true. Always.

It’s really just a question of how long you can play games with everyone and pretend everything is fine before it all eventually blows up into a revolution.

The flexible monetary system—you know, that whole setup where the Federal Reserve has the sole power to issue credit—is nothing more than an obvious scam. It’s plain as day. And honestly, any economist out there claiming otherwise is just an accomplice to the whole thing. If you actually look at the math, it’s scientifically proven that this entire system isn't sustainable in the long run. It’s a trap. It eventually leads everything toward total ruin, starting with the weaker players and the lazy ones, and then it moves on to everyone else.

Hey there
http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/

The issue lies with war profiteers, corruption, and whatever else you want to call it. Money supply isn't actually the core problem here. I don't see why you think high growth is impossible under these conditions. The real hurdle would be kickstarting the avalanche. The system would struggle initially because capital needs to accumulate, but after that, things would accelerate as prices inevitably drop. Eventually, it would all run smooth as silk.
The secret to banking profits is simple: they pay out salaries and issue loans in amounts smaller than the total deposits they hold. That should serve as a built-in regulatory mechanism—if savings levels drop, bank earnings drop too, forcing the system back into equilibrium. The key is just ensuring the outflow remains lower than the inflow. Even if a bank fails, the money supply stays the same or even shrinks, which is actually a good thing. Prices would find a new equilibrium, and people would think twice before lending or saving. It would force labor and production back onto solid ground. There’s no other way. If human greed and corruption outweigh common sense, the whole system collapses. Otherwise, it works. The root cause is corruption and the desire for an easy life without putting in the work.
Forget about sustainable monetary profit if there's no actual labor or savings to back it up.
And I agree, the system is fundamentally broken; there's no debate there. What I'm saying is that the manipulation itself can be turned against those who use it.

Little by little, the work gets done.

Robert Vaughn10 said:The issue lies with war profiteers, corruption, and whatever else you want to call it. Money supply isn't actually the core problem here. I don't see why you think high growth is impossible under these conditions. The real hurdle would be kickstarting the avalanche. The system would struggle initially because capital needs to accumulate, but after that, things would accelerate as prices inevitably drop. Eventually, it would all run smooth as silk.
The secret to banking profits is simple: they pay out salaries and issue loans in amounts smaller than the total deposits they hold. That should serve as a built-in regulatory mechanism—if savings levels drop, bank earnings drop too, forcing the system back into equilibrium. The key is just ensuring the outflow remains lower than the inflow. Even if a bank fails, the money supply stays the same or even shrinks, which is actually a good thing. Prices would find a new equilibrium, and people would think twice before lending or saving. It would force labor and production back onto solid ground. There’s no other way. If human greed and corruption outweigh common sense, the whole system collapses. Otherwise, it works. The root cause is corruption and the desire for an easy life without putting in the work.
Forget about sustainable monetary profit if there's no actual labor or savings to back it up.
And I agree, the system is fundamentally broken; there's no debate there. What I'm saying is that the manipulation itself can be turned against those who use it.

Little by little, the work gets done.

I'll admit you've got plenty of optimism, kind of like how Pelé used to be, but after spending these last few months digging through various economic articles and studying historical events, I honestly don't think that outlook is going to hold up.

The first issue you’re running into is how accumulation actually works. While you’re busy stacking up earnings, someone else—or a whole group of people—is sitting there taking a loss. The whole idea is that by accumulating capital, you’re going to make an investment, scale up your production capacity, and try to squeeze even more money out of everyone else. But let's be real, not everyone can pull that off. For some people to be profiting, a lot of others have to end up as losers in the money game.

The idea that fractional reserve lending isn't "good" is really only half the story. Look, every business deserves to turn a profit, including a bank. The only real distinction here is that a bank actually has the power to create money out of thin air and then demand a profit on top of that.

When you really stop to look at it, almost every company out there is basically chasing the exact same thing. They’re all just trying to turn a profit. Honestly, there isn't much of a distinction between them and a major bank anymore.

I still don't quite get how you can't see that when everyone is looking to turn a profit, there's an inevitable need to inject new money into the system. It’s staring us right in the face through credit expansion. You can't have real expansion without injecting new capital via the federal budget—but now, thanks to certain laws, that's been blocked. It shouldn't be injecting this much cash, really. I don't know how much more I can explain this. I've already written about it before.

If you really want to see how this whole thing falls apart, just grab a Microsoft Excel sheet and run some numbers. Seriously. Just set up a ten-year projection with a few different entities and the government factored in. Keep it simple at first—strip out inflation and ignore imports entirely. You can even play around with interest rates on loans if you want to get fancy. I’d suggest starting with a target profit margin of maybe 5% of total revenue. At the end of the day, profit is just what's left after you subtract all those costs from your income. It's pretty straightforward once you lay it out.

Just tweak the numbers on the federal surplus or deficit and you’ll see exactly what kind of setup we need for prosperity ten years down the road. There is a lot of data here to sift through, but once you look at it, the result becomes pretty clear.

I know there’s probably zero chance you’re actually going to try building this thing. And honestly, once I finally find some free time, I’ll likely have to be the one to do it myself since I don't have any formal background in economics. It’s a bit of a project. I already put together a Microsoft Excel sheet tracking profits for a closed community over a specific timeframe, and it pretty much proves my entire point. The next step would be to properly cross-reference that data so all seven entities are trading with one another. You'd need to show all seven paying taxes to the government and receiving government contracts, too. If you run that out ten years—with the ability to adjust transaction amounts along the way—it gets interesting. Add in foreign payments, international subsidies, and the Bank for Banks, and you could basically run a rough simulation of everything happening in the country. It won't necessarily hand you a solution to the problem, but it would definitely map out the possible ways things could play out.

It all comes down to the money supply. I’ve touched on this before. It really can't be any clearer than this. If there is already plenty of cash circulating in the system and then you start forcing more and more into it, things shift. A little bit of greed kicks in. Everyone starts hiking up their prices just to grab as much as they can, and that's how you end up with inflation. Part of it comes from actual demand, sure, but a huge chunk of it? That's just pure greed.

When you run out of cash, deflation should technically kick in. It’s actually a great thing if there weren't all this massive debt hanging over everyone's heads. But that's the catch. With deflation, that same debt just keeps growing because you have to work harder and harder just to cover the exact same payment. The bankers? They're just sitting there rubbing their hands together. And honestly, they do the same thing during inflation. When prices go up and money gets tight, everyone starts scrambling for credit, which just makes those loans even more expensive due to the demand. Of course, neither deflation nor inflation lasts forever. In a deflationary spiral, eventually, the money hoarders end up owning everything while anyone running a business at a loss just goes bankrupt. Then you look at inflation. The upside there is that people trying to get rid of devaluing currency keep the commerce moving, even if it feels a bit chaotic. But the downside is obvious—money loses its value, and the real winners are the ones holding the printing press. Banks aren't going to go bust; they'll just settle for thinner margins. They make so much money off private transactions through modern credit card processing anyway that no amount of inflation is ever going to mess with their bottom line.

How do you actually prove there's a hole in the system? It’s pretty simple when you look at it this way. Imagine if the entire system could function without that initial 1% of capital—meaning, what if you just pulled it out? You'd wonder how that's possible. Well, look at how a massive corporation like Home Depot operates. They slash costs year after year, and the shareholders get their cut of the profits without ever touching the principal. According to your logic, that shouldn't threaten the stability of the system. But if you do that consistently, year after year, eventually you've drained every last cent from circulation. That money isn't gone; it’s sitting right there in the shareholders' bank accounts. The system keeps spinning, but only on the basis of bartering goods. Eventually, everyone goes bust because they can't pay their taxes to the government or settle their debts with the Bank for Banks. That’s basically the playbook used during the Greek debt crisis. In that case, things were just dragged out because tourism kept pumping in fresh cash. How do we know that influx won't eventually dry up? If it were enough, they wouldn't be in this mess. It’s just a matter of time before the rest of the country falls into total chaos, tourism revenue drops, and the whole infrastructure collapses under its own weight. After that, all they'll be able to do is sell off pieces of their territory to foreign interests for pennies on the dollar, because they won't have any leverage left to negotiate a fair price.

Look, that’s really the least important part of this whole thing. The most important thing is that once I put together my Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing exactly how community profits work, everything changes. When I lay it all out and prove that if one group wins, someone else has to lose, people tend to go quiet. If you can't disprove the math, you just don't comment on it. It's funny. Everyone reading this seems to think there's some paradox in my Microsoft Excel sheet, like reality works differently than what the numbers show. But reality isn't different. We have massive debt and our imports are way higher than our exports. That’s not a "nuanced" situation. It’s just a huge deficit.

It seems like none of these economists want to step up and actually own the situation. They won't admit that we need to look at how and why things reached this point. Even the White House refuses to push back against the narrative that everything is perfectly fine and that I’m just wrong. It’s frustrating. I sent out ten different emails to various political parties, representatives, and labor unions, and I didn't get a single response. Not one word from anyone over at the University of Chicago or Harvard. So, I started doing my own thing. Now, whenever I get spam in my inbox, I reply with a PDF link from my website. Finally, I got an email back from an economics PhD who runs his own accounting firm. In one message, he basically told me I was right, though he argued the real issue is the government's reckless spending and the massive surge in borrowing just to fund social programs. Then, in a second email, he says that... Look, you might have the best intentions when it comes to fixing the health of the American economy, but honestly? You’re probably doomed to fail right from the jump. The people pulling the strings on all this debt are making way too much money to ever let go of their grip. It's a closed loop. Every single new loan or old debt being shuffled around generates massive profits for those specific circles. There isn't any realistic path forward where we don't end up stuck in a cycle of endless borrowing, just like what happened over in Greece.

Clearly, there are people out there who can wrap their heads around this. They just think that trying to spread the word about what’s actually driving this whole debt crisis is a lost cause. A total mission impossible. So, I keep coming back to this thread every now and then. I figure, eventually, as the years go by, people will realize I was telling the truth—based entirely on the actual math and the receipts. And once they do, we can finally start asking the real questions:

I just can't help but wonder... why hasn't a single economist ever actually published anything about this before? It's strange. You look at all the papers out there, all the big studies from the Ivy League, and nothing. Just silence on this specific point. It makes you think.
I’ve been thinking about this lately. Why doesn't an economics degree actually sit on a solid scientific foundation? You look at the math involved, and it just feels disconnected. It should be built on mathematics, really. But it isn't. It's strange how that works. Most people assume it's all formulas, but there's a gap there. A real gap. It's like looking at fringe science sometimes. Just a lot of theories floating around without the hard data to anchor them down. I don't know. It just seems off.
Who actually signed those damaging international treaties? And more importantly, what was their reasoning behind it?
The way the head of the Federal Reserve acts and speaks... it all makes sense when you look at this evidence. It’s easy to see why. He didn't exactly go running to the administration to warn them about a looming debt crisis either. I mean, he hands in those reports every single year. You'd think he'd flag the red flags then. But honestly, I’m pretty certain he’s been sitting on this information for a long, long time. Way before I ever caught wind of it.
I mean, I've been thinking about this lately. Why hasn't anyone actually sat down and put together a real, deep-dive analysis on how inflation is hitting the economy under the current system? It seems like such an obvious thing to tackle. You look at everything happening right now, and there’s just this massive gap where a comprehensive study should be. People talk about it, sure, but nobody is really crunching the numbers to see the true impact. It's strange. Just feels like a missed opportunity for some actual clarity.
I just can't wrap my head around it. Why didn't the administration and the President—the same guy who swore on everything he’d be fair and never back down—do something sooner? I mean, they had the data. It wasn't just a guess; it was mathematically proven information. They had the proof right in front of them from the start, yet they just sat there. It doesn't add up.
Why do 99% of people just can't wrap their heads around how a scam actually works? It's honestly baffling. Most folks see the surface level stuff. They look at the obvious lies. But they miss the actual mechanics of the deception. It’s deeper than that. People tend to think scams are about being foolish, but it's more about how reality is reshaped. They trust the structure instead of questioning the foundation. It's a fundamental disconnect in how most people process information. Just a simple lack of perception, really.
...and so on.

What are the main misconceptions out there?

Capitalism can work without constant infusions of new money. I mean, if total collapse is just part of the capitalist cycle, then sure, it can function that way too.
Inflation comes down to printing money. It’s just that. In this system, it all boils down to necessity and pure greed, driven by massive credit expansion.
Supply and demand will sort everything out eventually. It’s a given. But honestly? We might end up doing it all through bartering instead of using actual cash.
- The system goes through these periodic crises and then recovers—but in this setup, it never really stays up—it’s more like a yo-yo effect you see with people struggling with weight issues.
- Paying back loans is just as easy when there isn't credit expansion—theoretically, sure, but once people lose their jobs during a crisis, they realize it isn't actually easy. Right now, there isn't any credit expansion, so I'd suggest not taking on debt because money is scarce.
- If I get an economics degree, I can outsmart the crisis—that's a complete delusion. You're better off chopping wood in the forest—it's a guaranteed living as long as the trees are still standing.
- I'll pay back the loan from my income—doesn't work if everyone else is also taking out loans.
- This system has no end point—it ends when banks completely shut down lending because existing debts simply can't be repaid.
- We aren't too indebted yet, so we can afford to borrow more—totally wrong and unprofessional. Without analyzing whether current debts can actually be repaid, that statement is just pure stupidity.
- It's either something or nothing—in this system, we already know how it ends: total anarchy.
- Banks will go bankrupt and I won't have to pay my debt—well, you have examples where you still have to pay a non-existent bank (like one in Ljubljana)—HA! Man, I'd love to see that happen.
- Let's just swap the political party in power or change the administration and the economy will magically revive—completely wrong. Unless, of course, we all want to be slaves working for nothing.

Here are the biggest misconceptions regarding a system based exclusively on the credit issuance of new money.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt the need to recap everything.

We've covered all these topics already, and at the end of the day, the only thing left is for one of you to build a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet similar to mine, outline a precise procedure, and create prosperity for everyone within ten years. Well, if anyone pulls that off, they should let the government know immediately, because they are sitting around waiting for a miracle to save us in a system like this. Instead, they should be using actual science to seek a long-term solution by changing the regulations on new money supply.

Regards,

http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/
Profit_zajednice.xls

Of course the system is inverted; there’s no debating that. But I honestly don't see why you assume one person's production and savings necessitates someone else's loss. If the other party also saves or simply avoids spending what they haven't earned, there is no loss.
It requires rejecting debt and current standards, but it is the only way forward.
By definition, saving means reduced consumption. If the money supply remains constant, prices must drop as production increases. The point is to scale back consumption to realistic levels until you establish a solid position. In fact, this behavior needs to be permanent. Anyone spending more than they can afford is essentially incurring a loss. Under such a framework, we should eliminate the ability to print money and run budget deficits. Once again, your diagnosis of the situation is spot on, but the only solution I see is what I've described. The debts are massive and largely artificial, and I've already told you how to fix it.
You argue that in my proposed system, individuals and companies would go bankrupt because they couldn't pay their taxes. I fail to understand why you think the government would continue spending if it doesn't collect tax revenue. It simply won't spend! That is exactly what we should strive for: everyone being self-reliant and covering their own costs. You're forgetting that if we pulled dollars out of the system to increase their value, prices would fall, which means less tax revenue would be collected nominally. Therefore, your sacrifice would be rewarded with high purchasing power and lower tax burdens. The only rule for the state is to avoid a budget deficit, while people and firms must always produce more than they consume. If you can't manage that, don't participate in the market as a business—just exist as an individual. In that case, living off the land or something similar is acceptable. But you simply do not go into debt or incur costs until you have built up a position. Eventually, the market would surely find its equilibrium through the law of supply and demand.
You cannot spend what you do not have. Hard work and saving are the only winning hands.

Maria Thomas48, no offense, but perhaps you should take that Microsoft Excel spreadsheet somewhere else?

The Federal Reserve issues currency. You might read in the news today that the Federal Reserve deposited $300 million in earnings into the budget.
Every other central bank operates the exact same way. The government then injects that money back into the economy via wages and subsidies.

Now, please tell me, which part of this is unclear to you?
Some people choose to hide cash under a mattress, but if someone breaks into their house and steals it, that money returns to circulation.
Others deposit money in a bank, where the bank reinvests it and pays interest, yet that money remains within the system.
Your primary assumption—the very foundation of your entire argument—is a rotten plank you are stubbornly clinging to in this thread. To suggest that in a system where X amount of money is issued at Y interest rate, there is no way for that money to return. That is such nonsense; it is the fundamental error of someone without any formal training.

Honestly, once more, go educate yourself!

Gregory Williams7 said:Maria Thomas48, no offense, but perhaps you should take that Microsoft Excel spreadsheet somewhere else?

The Federal Reserve issues currency. You might read in the news today that the Federal Reserve deposited $300 million in earnings into the budget.
Every other central bank operates the exact same way. The government then injects that money back into the economy via wages and subsidies.

Now, please tell me, which part of this is unclear to you?
Some people choose to hide cash under a mattress, but if someone breaks into their house and steals it, that money returns to circulation.
Others deposit money in a bank, where the bank reinvests it and pays interest, yet that money remains within the system.
Your primary assumption—the very foundation of your entire argument—is a rotten plank you are stubbornly clinging to in this thread. To suggest that in a system where X amount of money is issued at Y interest rate, there is no way for that money to return. That is such nonsense; it is the fundamental error of someone without any formal training.

Honestly, once more, go educate yourself!

The Federal Reserve is really just one link in this whole chain of credit, you know? It’s like a sequence. And honestly, their profit margins don't even come close to what the commercial banks pull in from the rest of the chain. If you actually sit down and look at the numbers, you'll see how much profit those big banks are raking in. We need at least $15 billion in new money flowing through the system every single year, but here you are bragging about having 2% of that in the budget. It's a joke. It's like you're playing the lottery all year long and thinking you've won. $33 Every once in a while, you just get one. $33I guess you’re feeling pretty lucky since you actually pulled it off. $33 And just like that, $5,200 gone.
The Federal Reserve didn't just dream up this whole system out of thin air. Someone else built it. And that person? They’re going to walk away with everything.

You still don't get it. The whole system just can't function without a constant influx of cash to cover those perpetual profits, because there’s always someone else on the other side taking the loss. It isn't even about people being bad at what they do. It’s just that the money eventually runs out. They simply run out of funds to pay themselves.

You still don't get that this whole system is stuck in neutral. It’s simple math. If nobody actually has any cash on hand, you can't just hand out money to everyone and then turn around asking for an extra 3% back. That doesn't work. And if you can't even get off zero, then you aren't moving forward at all. You're just sliding backward into debt and total ruin.

You still don't quite grasp what the end result of inflation actually looks like within this system of constant, baseline money supply. The actual cause of inflation doesn't really matter when you're looking at the bill. It’s just irrelevant to the math.

You can't find the error in my Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the community profits. And that doesn't even worry you? What does that actually mean? I am sitting here proving to you that the very foundation of capitalism—the idea that you can't make continuous profit without consequences—is fundamentally broken, yet you just assume it’s some mistake on my part because the news isn't reporting on it.

When I reach out to the media—TV, newspapers, radio—it’s just total silence. Zero percent response. Basically, they don't care about us. Reading between the lines, it feels like there's this unspoken rule: "There are plenty of great stories out there, just don't you dare tell them." If someone tried to drop this kind of info on a nightly news broadcast or a major network special, people would react like they were reporting an alien invasion aimed at conquering the country. Nobody wants to touch the truth because they're terrified of the fallout. Everyone just wants to protect their own paycheck. I can only really discuss this stuff on a Fringe science program, where things like this actually get aired. But honestly, because those shows cover so much other wild stuff, this looks just as unbelievable. If it had been presented with the right math, it wouldn't seem so fantastical. It would just be reality.
....

You can't just plug your arguments into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It doesn't work like that. Your claims and all this reasoning you're doing... it’s just pure fog. You're using it to hide the truth.

That’s the truth right there. And honestly, it looks like you ran out of actual arguments once you started throwing around credentials.

Even a PhD in economics confirmed my account. Wait, so he isn't even a college professor!? Look, I don't really need anyone's validation on this, but honestly, it’s just good to know there are still people out there who actually understand how math works.

You can always just hire whoever you want to fix the numbers in a Microsoft Excel sheet whenever you feel like something is off with the Profit Community's math. If you actually stumble upon an error, then give me a shout.

There’s an old saying that really hits home sometimes: It’s better to stay quiet than to go around talking nonsense.

I’ve weighed all the facts and laid out every single claim. I’ve argued my points thoroughly. I'm not bored enough to use this forum just to spout nonsense or go out of my way to annoy people.

This topic matters, and the facts are straight. Honestly, it’s pretty obvious because several people who were arguing with me before have just gone silent. They realized they couldn't use math to prove me wrong, and they clearly don't want to go on the record admitting I actually had it right. I don't hold it against them, though. I get it. Everyone has a right to defend their position. But when you're proven wrong, you also have the right to just walk away from the conversation so you don't end up looking foolish.

Look, I’m not trying to bait economists into an argument here. Usually, they just end up being their own worst enemies by trying to use math to debunk claims that have already been proven mathematically.

Regarding the editing... honestly, just go back and brush up on basic grade school math. You don't need much more than that to grasp the logic behind a closed system. And, obviously, a decent IQ helps. Without those, you're stuck.

There's also this one misconception in your text:

"There are others who will save in a bank, but the bank will rotate that money for them and pay interest, while the money stays in the system" — that's just wrong.

You literally wrote that your money would generate interest (meaning you're pulling a portion of money from others). The total amount of money is finite. Interest accumulates year after year, and eventually, it drains all the remaining real money out of existence. Just try putting yourself in the shoes of Jesus Christ, if he were to put one single cent into a bank for 2,000 years at 3% interest above inflation. Since he isn't dead, he could theoretically step in at any moment and collect his earnings. We're talking roughly $4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And every year, he'd be pulling in $14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in interest alone.
In better terms, the fact that you have savings means someone else (or several people) is facing an ever-growing loss. It doesn't matter where you keep your cash or who you lend it to. Borrowed money has to be paid back.
The way you return that money to the system is through spending, not saving. You should be spending your money with the losers, not the profiteers. Spending money with the profiteers doesn't really help circulate it back into the system effectively. And let's face it, profiteers wouldn't be called profiteers if they were being wasteful with their cash.

Best,

Let’s try this one more time. I didn't bother reading your previous post because you simply repeat the same nonsense over and over...

So, what exactly is money? Money serves as a medium of exchange, but it is also a specific measure of labor that someone is willing to perform in return.
In essence, for one dollar, an individual is willing to provide a certain amount of work worth exactly one dollar.

Even though the total supply of money within the system is limited, the potential volume of labor available is limitless, and through that collective effort, all debts can be settled.
Do you understand now?
I am gradually exhausting every possible way to prove this to you. I honestly do not know how else to explain that what you are saying is complete nonsense.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Of course the system is inverted; there’s no debating that. But I honestly don't see why you assume one person's production and savings necessitates someone else's loss. If the other party also saves or simply avoids spending what they haven't earned, there is no loss.
It requires rejecting debt and current standards, but it is the only way forward.
By definition, saving means reduced consumption. If the money supply remains constant, prices must drop as production increases. The point is to scale back consumption to realistic levels until you establish a solid position. In fact, this behavior needs to be permanent. Anyone spending more than they can afford is essentially incurring a loss. Under such a framework, we should eliminate the ability to print money and run budget deficits. Once again, your diagnosis of the situation is spot on, but the only solution I see is what I've described. The debts are massive and largely artificial, and I've already told you how to fix it.
You argue that in my proposed system, individuals and companies would go bankrupt because they couldn't pay their taxes. I fail to understand why you think the government would continue spending if it doesn't collect tax revenue. It simply won't spend! That is exactly what we should strive for: everyone being self-reliant and covering their own costs. You're forgetting that if we pulled dollars out of the system to increase their value, prices would fall, which means less tax revenue would be collected nominally. Therefore, your sacrifice would be rewarded with high purchasing power and lower tax burdens. The only rule for the state is to avoid a budget deficit, while people and firms must always produce more than they consume. If you can't manage that, don't participate in the market as a business—just exist as an individual. In that case, living off the land or something similar is acceptable. But you simply do not go into debt or incur costs until you have built up a position. Eventually, the market would surely find its equilibrium through the law of supply and demand.
You cannot spend what you do not have. Hard work and saving are the only winning hands.

Saving money is the golden rule. I’m with you on that. The real issue is that saving assumes someone actually has a surplus to set aside. In reality, not everyone has that luxury. Plus, putting your savings into a bank account is basically just handing them the tools they need to turn a profit off everyone else.

Here’s a little bit of wisdom on how to save some money.

I’m done using my card. I'm just going to hit the ATM for cash instead. $0.00 The fees are just too much, so I end up taking cash instead. It’s pretty simple. These big banks are basically bleeding businesses dry because they snatch up a chunk of every single transaction made with a customer's card. That’s a serious amount of money. The numbers are honestly impressive. This is exactly how anyone who actually knows how to save should be operating.

Let me explain how taxes actually work. Say you’re running a small business. One month, your revenue takes a hit. Nobody cares. You still have to cover Social Security, Medicare, and those other mandatory contributions. It all goes straight into the federal treasury. Your overhead doesn't care about your actual earnings or how much cash you have on hand. If you miss a payment, the interest rates kick in immediately after the 15th. You really don't want to find yourself in that position. Then there's the Chamber of Commerce fees for small business owners. Those just creep up every single year. They pull tens of millions of dollars out of the small business sector alone through those flat fees. For some people, it’s a total gold mine. You simply can't lower your costs because they decide what your expenses are. There’s no way to save money unless you raise your prices. And then everyone starts wondering where inflation is coming from. It’s a cycle. They raise wages—because, hey, they need that tax revenue—so then they raise the minimum contributions based on those higher wages, which forces you to raise your prices again. It just keeps going in a circle. Everything seems fine on paper, but since there isn't enough actual money to fuel this constant upward climb, we end up exactly where we are. We were born foolish, and we’ll probably stay that way. Deep down, I had a feeling things wouldn't end well the moment they started pushing those wage hikes. Every year, wages go up by 4%. What kind of logic is that? Is a day 4% longer every year? It doesn't make sense. Either I have to work 4% faster, or I have to hike my prices. After a few years of this, raising prices is the only option left.

So, they’ve just slammed us with those European energy prices alongside our local wages. It’s a weird setup. ExxonMobil holds about 60% of our domestic oil needs, which leads to some pretty interesting math if you actually sit down and look at it. Since ExxonMobil covers half the market, but domestic oil only accounts for maybe 30% of what we actually use, it means we’re importing about 40% at global market rates. There really isn't a way to save money when it's structured like that. Energy is the biggest hit to the wallet. It doesn't look like we'll be running out of firewood anytime soon, though.

At home, you’ve got trash collection fees calculated by the square foot. Then there’s the local government charging you a sewage fee. And as for the actual yard? Well, they haven't figured out how to charge for that yet. Pure luck, I guess. Then you've got the electric company hitting you with a "system maintenance" fee, acting like they're the only ones in the country with an actual infrastructure. Nobody else seems to have a system, apparently. They could have just called it a minimum usage fee, like how mobile carriers do it, but they didn't. It's like they don't care how much money you actually make. They just grab whatever they want. You'd think we were printing money in our basements or something.

So, banks charge you fees just for the privilege of paying fees. Yeah, you heard me right—there’s the actual price of a service, and then there's this extra surcharge just for them to pull the money out of your account. It feels totally illegal and goes against what you actually signed up for in your contract, but apparently, the Federal Reserve thinks it's perfectly fine. They usually hide it under some vague line about "executing orders under authority," which isn't even mentioned in the agreement in that way. I don't have any standing orders set up. It's like they think we don't all have our own overhead costs that have nothing to do with the core business. You know, things like envelopes, paper, computer depreciation, wasting time writing invoices, or the cost of getting copies when you get paid. We aren't allowed to charge for those, obviously. But banks? They can do whatever they want without a second thought. They just grab whatever they can get their hands on. My checking account fees at Chase spiked 30% overnight. That's how they make their money.

People just keep using their debit cards for everything, handing over almost half their monthly paycheck to the Bank for Banks in fees every year. It means your suppliers end up making way less because they aren't getting those deductions. Now, just imagine if a million people were pulling in an average salary of $1667. That’s over two billion in potential annual revenue just sitting there if everyone used credit instead. People throw money around like it's nothing, like leaves blowing in the wind. But you feel like a high roller at the grocery store checkout when you tap that card. It’s a luxury lifestyle. We can't afford to be that reckless. Nobody really stops to think about it.

Plus, the government has all these other departments to fund: Customs, the police, the military, and all the various recipients of taxpayer money: political parties, firefighters, privileged retirees, and so on. Then you have the IRS and the healthcare system. Everything costs money. And not everyone is going to shut down their business while they're still in the black. Once you run into debt, you can't just close a small business—though I'm not sure about big corporations. You'll just be left with debts accruing 15% interest. And there aren't any jobs left. The ones who close shop while they still have the cash will save themselves. For a massive corporation, they've accumulated so much capital that liquidating early seems smarter than facing bankruptcy and having all their assets seized later.

Still, none of it works if there isn't a steady flow of new non-credit money coming in.

Best,

Gregory Williams7 said:Let’s try this one more time. I didn't bother reading your previous post because you simply repeat the same nonsense over and over...

So, what exactly is money? Money serves as a medium of exchange, but it is also a specific measure of labor that someone is willing to perform in return.
In essence, for one dollar, an individual is willing to provide a certain amount of work worth exactly one dollar.

Even though the total supply of money within the system is limited, the potential volume of labor available is limitless, and through that collective effort, all debts can be settled.
Do you understand now?
I am gradually exhausting every possible way to prove this to you. I honestly do not know how else to explain that what you are saying is complete nonsense.

The problem you're missing is that cutting down the volume only works if you start shortening the settlement period. Like, moving from monthly to bi-weekly. Then eventually to weekly, and under current conditions, maybe even daily. If you do that, you actually need less cash on hand to maintain the same level of turnover. You could potentially bump up a portion of the daily pay before and after shifts, but there’s a catch. You wouldn't be able to spend it more often than twice a day. That would be the limit.

You clearly get the math behind this, and honestly, you’re right—it’s peak efficiency. But there's a catch. The transaction fees at the Bank for Banks would absolutely kill you because of how often everyone would be moving money for their employees. The big banks would just end up making even more profit than they do now. You'd also see massive lines everywhere. You'd basically be paying your rent twice a day along with every other little expense. It's just too much friction.

Nobody is really buying into that idea, mostly because of this latest development. There just isn't any other way to cut down the capital requirements while keeping everything theoretically sound. It's called increasing the velocity of money. Economists teach it in textbooks, but they never mention that in most practical scenarios, it's just completely unfeasible.

You say you have endless potential to work, but you’re also short on cash. It doesn't work that way. You can't just sit around waiting for the money to find its way to you because those fixed costs will eat you alive and leave you bankrupt. Money doesn't move any faster than it does. It's obvious once you see payment terms getting pushed back. That's a clear sign that liquidity is drying up. It means they aren't paying everyone in small increments; instead, they pay rarely, but only what was actually billed. And then the deadline just keeps sliding month after month. People used to pull this same trick with Social Security back before the turn of the millennium. They basically figured out how to pay out eleven checks a year instead of twelve. It caused a massive uproar back then.

There were always those kinds of hunters in the murky waters—people who actually had the money, but just intentionally dragged their feet on paying their bills. I wouldn't call them professionals; they were more like business pigs. Take Pfizer, for example. Back when they were pulling in massive profits, they’d push payment terms out to three months. That’s a textbook move from a business pig. Honestly, I never wanted to work for people like that. They can go find some other sucker to act as their interest-free credit line.

I mean, unless you’ve got some other theory for why payments are running late that doesn't involve someone being broke. There has to be something else going on.

Debt repayment is a whole different ballgame. You can't really settle external debts if you don't have enough exports coming in while cash is tight. I mean, if you hand over every single dollar just to pay off what is owed, there’s nothing left for the local economy to circulate. Honestly, I think this kind of situation is going to hit us in about two years. Our debts will eventually outweigh all our foreign savings combined with the Federal Reserve's reserves. The Fed's reserves are just sitting there on deposit, whereas the dollar is out there being issued and circulating. Basically, if you add up all private foreign currency savings and the money held by the Federal Reserve, that's the total pool available to cover the debt. Once those foreign reserves are drained, you won't be able to maintain the exchange rate anymore, and imports will start outweighing exports. That’s why it actually makes sense for the Federal Reserve to take out those foreign currency loans; they need them to keep the exchange rate steady.

Look, we really ought to be exporting more than we’re importing. We've known that since the beginning of time, honestly, and it hasn't done us any favors. If we actually shifted that balance, you'd see new foreign currency flowing into the system—replacing our local tender—and things would finally start working. That is, if people stopped taking out massive loans with interest rates that completely dwarf what we make from exports. But then again, is that even possible for every nation? China is still making it work for now, but how much longer can they keep that up?

Just three years ago, the logic was pretty straightforward. Everyone was saying we needed massive GDP growth and a budget surplus just to chip away at the debt. Now? The goalposts have moved. Apparently, we need to be outperforming China by a landslide and cranking up exports like crazy just to break even after all these years. It’s a different story now.

Best,

I see you get the point about credit cards and how money leaks away needlessly, but I still disagree regarding savings. One might jump to the conclusion that keeping money in a bank is a bad move. Personally, I expect my bank to invest those funds into productive ventures and pay me out for it. If someone ends up in the red or failed to run the numbers correctly for their small business, that’s on them. You can't generate profit that way, and nobody else is to blame but themselves. So, I believe the formula "work + savings" is viable. It is incredibly difficult at the start, but hypothetically imagine if most people operated this way. The value of money would rise simply because there would be less—or at least no more—of it in circulation, and prices would likely drop as demand falls due to increased saving. Gregory Williams7 made a good point that the capacity for labor is limitless, and by extension, productivity is too... I would add that any scenario where a person doesn't spend more than they earn is a win for society. Broke? Build your position step by step; don't dive into everything until you have a solid foundation. That is the root of the crisis. They handed out loans like candy to people who couldn't possibly pay them back. For instance, the US government shouldn't be taking out loans to cover its deficit. A guy like Koch wouldn't be able to get a loan unless it was for production plants rather than refinancing existing debt... and so on. If we only extended credit for production and taxed consumption instead, things would be much easier. Of course, that requires stripping away all those various taxes on production and wages. That would actually incentivize both work and saving.

Robert Vaughn10 said:I see you get the point about credit cards and how money leaks away needlessly, but I still disagree regarding savings. One might jump to the conclusion that keeping money in a bank is a bad move. Personally, I expect my bank to invest those funds into productive ventures and pay me out for it. If someone ends up in the red or failed to run the numbers correctly for their small business, that’s on them. You can't generate profit that way, and nobody else is to blame but themselves. So, I believe the formula "work + savings" is viable. It is incredibly difficult at the start, but hypothetically imagine if most people operated this way. The value of money would rise simply because there would be less—or at least no more—of it in circulation, and prices would likely drop as demand falls due to increased saving. Gregory Williams7 made a good point that the capacity for labor is limitless, and by extension, productivity is too... I would add that any scenario where a person doesn't spend more than they earn is a win for society. Broke? Build your position step by step; don't dive into everything until you have a solid foundation. That is the root of the crisis. They handed out loans like candy to people who couldn't possibly pay them back. For instance, the US government shouldn't be taking out loans to cover its deficit. A guy like Koch wouldn't be able to get a loan unless it was for production plants rather than refinancing existing debt... and so on. If we only extended credit for production and taxed consumption instead, things would be much easier. Of course, that requires stripping away all those various taxes on production and wages. That would actually incentivize both work and saving.

The Federal Reserve usually manages savings by setting interest rates on deposits. When they drop those rates, there’s no point in saving, so people start dumping cash into real estate, stocks, or other investments instead. Because the Federal Reserve doesn't want to flood the market with cheap loans—which could destabilize the dollar and drain our foreign reserves—we end up stuck with what we have. High interest rates and a lack of liquidity regardless.

Saving money in a bank mostly benefits the bank itself. Honestly, maybe it would be better to put it into precious metals or something actually secure. Savings feel like a necessary evil because everything else is pretty risky. Take stocks, for example. If everyone pours all their profits back into stocks, you eventually hit a wall where it becomes obvious that not everyone can cash out at current prices because that actual cash simply isn't there. All that profit is just trapped in stock value. You end up with the same amount of cash but a massive pile of shares. What happens then? Most people get burned. It doesn't matter if the stocks are technically worth more on paper. There is no liquid cash to realize that value. Market laws tend to wipe out all that accumulated gain. This happened to Americans not too long ago. It can happen anytime people decide they want to dump huge amounts of stock at once.
It's the same deal with banks. You could drive any bank into bankruptcy. First, you play nice, deposit your money, and wait for them to issue loans. Then, everyone simultaneously cancels their CDs and withdraws their deposits. Suddenly, the bank is insolvent, and if they can't snag a loan, they go under.

The core issue is that accumulating savings or profits temporarily pulls money out of circulation. Loans replace that money, but those loans have to be repaid using whatever cash is left over, not from that initial pool of savings. So, the higher the level of savings, the harder it becomes to pay back those loans. Around here, miracles happen thanks to the Federal Reserve and our negative trade deficit. Savings are high, cash is tight, and interest rates are sky-high. It's a terrible setup for loan repayment. I honestly wonder about companies taking out loans right now. They might be better off just locking their doors and calling it quits.

Savings should really just be a buffer before spending. Like, instead of taking out a loan, you should save so things end up being cheaper. Saving without a specific goal to spend later isn't generally great for the community. It's just like making a profit without any intention of investing it.

Best regards

The reason for payment delays is simple: B owes A, C owes B, and D owes C. This isn't due to a lack of funds. It happens because A made some disastrous mistakes and now lacks liquidity. If A collapses, he might very well pull B, C, and D down with him.

Money is merely paper. It is a fictitious value we have collectively agreed to assign to specific tasks. For instance, it is understood that one hour of loading a truck is worth $8.25, even though that hour represents actual, useful labor, whereas $8.25 is just a piece of paper covered in ink.
Precisely because money is a perceived value rather than an effective one, its worth is determined by the perception of the masses using it. This leads to paradoxical situations where $1 in China might buy you a home made bracelet, yet in Iran, that same dollar could land you on a gallows. It all comes down to how the mass perceives that dollar.
Now that we have moved past the basics, let’s analyze the behavior of money. One observation is immediate: generally, the more money exists within the system, the less value people assign to it. It is a spontaneous reaction. Regardless of what someone declares an hour of truck loading is worth—say, $3.25—society will naturally devalue the currency if there is too much of it in circulation. Eventually, loading that truck will only be worth $8.25 per hour. No legal decrees, threats, or penalties can alter this. It is the only fixed law in this entire web of theories, and it is the one constant you can always rely on.

Consider saving. A person can save in many ways. Some choose gold, others silver, precious stones, real estate, land, stocks, funds, or bonds. However, only a small number of people save in paper. You must realize that every form of saving carries the characteristic of durability. For example, nobody saves in milk or eggs. Saving in paper isn't inherently bad, except for the fact that such paper ultimately serves only as kindling, yet those who save in it assign it a much higher value. When you own a stock, you own a piece of a company. You own a tangible share of the profits generated by the collective labor of the workers. You own something real. When you hold paper, you hold something that is effectively fuel for a fire; realistically, that is its only true utility. Everything else exists only in human minds.

As a society, we have perfected methods to track the flow of money. We monitor the movement from the Federal Reserve, through commercial banks, to the individual, and back again through taxes and consumption to the Federal Reserve and the state. But even then, it is still just the movement of paper and nothing more. Saving in this paper will eventually result in using that paper for heat, whereas saving in gold, for instance, will never lead to that. Inflation exists specifically to discourage people from hoarding this paper. It is a tool used to drive people toward other forms of saving, which is not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, bank interest exists to assist those who lack the foresight to know how or where to save to generate profit. Both inflation and interest rates are tools through which this system functions. They are instruments used for the common good and progress.

Theoretically, if everyone saved money by hoarding it under their mattress, there would be a shortage of cash. This wouldn't manifest as a delay in payments, but rather as a sudden spike in prices—for example, bread jumping from $1 to $2.25. That is how the system works in practice. It is not a matter of how you or I perceive it; it is simply an axiom. When supply is low, value increases, and vice versa.
By the way, in practice, it will never happen that everyone hoards cash under their mattresses.
Your Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is flawed precisely because it only accounts for the money currently in the system. It fails to account for newly created labor, the time factor, and so on.
To me, my reasoning is perfectly clear and logical. I truly do not understand how one could get lost in this thought process. If your conclusion is wrong, it is because your premises were flawed.

It is a vital fact that money, as paper, does not possess a fixed value. In other words, it has no intrinsic value; its fictitious value is exactly what we, as a society, have assigned to it. This is the foundation for any further analysis.

Furthermore, one cannot simply compare saving in stocks to saving in cash. The very essence of saving is acknowledging that nothing is ever 100% certain. Gold kept at home can be stolen. A vault can be breached. A corporation can go bankrupt. Stocks can plummet. A nation can default. A farm could be flooded, a ship could sink, or a house could collapse. The risks are endless.
And yet, you will still save. You must save. You should diversify your assets—you wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket if you were sensible—but the act of saving remains necessary.
Saving cash is one thing, but owning land provides you with the actual value of soil that can produce food. Cash is merely paper that burns poorly and produces far too much smoke. If you start talking about "security" regarding savings, you should strike the word from your vocabulary immediately.

Savings should always outpace inflation, and credit ought to be strictly reserved for production, backed by substantial collateral. That is how you create real value while keeping the system rock-solid. According to the laws of supply and demand, prices will drop—it’s simple math. Savings, by definition, imply lower consumption; therefore, prices go down. We can debate the specific vehicles used for saving, but it is the only thing capable of sustaining the system without falling prey to speculation or corruption. Frankly, I don't care if a bank collapses; as long as it isn't the taxpayers footing the bill, they'll think twice before gambling next time. If we need to tighten the credit tap until enough capital accumulates, then so be it. For me, savings are the only true source of security. Even if savings lose some value, you aren't starting in the red. It's just a matter of lifestyle. This is why the right to start a business should belong to those willing to make real sacrifices over multiple generations, not speculators. Or, naturally, if you have a legitimate income someone is ready to pay out immediately.

I honestly don't care what money is actually used for. All that matters to me is that it serves its purpose as a way to settle my bills. That's really it.

If you’ve taken a look at that XLS spreadsheet showing the association's profits, you'll see exactly why the payments end up getting stalled after a while.

Here’s why: The middleman sectors—those entities that exist solely to squeeze a little extra off the top for everyone else—are drying up. Eventually, they’ll just vanish because there won't be any indirect profit left to grab. It happens. One day the margins disappear and then suddenly, there's nothing left to facilitate.Next up are the ones who aren't making much money. Because business has dried up, they’re sliding into the red and struggling to stay on top of their bills. Since even the companies already in the hole haven't been hitting their tax obligations to the government, this drop in revenue means the new loss-makers are falling behind on taxes too. It all circles back to the same thing—the government ends up seeing a dip in tax revenue, which shows up as them pushing back payment deadlines for services and products ordered by the state.

It’s the same thing that happens when credit expansion hits a wall. Loans stop growing. Those companies that were once pure sellers suddenly find themselves without any business at all, and they start operating at a loss. You know how the rest goes. It’s like that whole story about the housing contractors who were making money left and right. I'll get to that. Once the loans have to be paid back, there’s less work available because those construction crews aren't out there spending money on anything else anymore. It reminds me of back during the big highway expansion era. Remote parts of the Midwest were absolutely booming during those years. Money was just flying everywhere. Everyone was winning.

People always seem to miss the connection between prosperity and a steady influx of new capital. It’s a simple equation, really. If you can't link the two, then you're just ignoring how things work. Without that constant flow of new money coming into the system, you have to expect stagnation. In fact, it's more than that. You should pretty much count on the whole society regressing. It's just basic logic.

You can pretty much model all of that in a spreadsheet if you want to. But in a real American community, we’re dealing with imports that constantly drain our cash flow, not to mention the inflation we basically import from overseas—like how fuel prices spike and then drag every other price up with them. It just speeds everything up and makes the whole situation worse.

The whole idea that inflation actually drives economic growth? It’s not exactly right. There's definitely a connection there, I guess, but there are consequences too. It's complicated like that. People still don't get it. You can't just conjure up money to cover inflation out of thin air. It only comes from credit. That's just how it works.You could basically compare this kind of inflation that drives the economy to drugs. It makes you feel good in the moment, sure, but it eventually leads you straight to ruin.Nobody can actually fuel inflation through debt because the total amount of debt just grows by the sum of the interest rates and the inflation rate itself. It's basic math.The real debt is definitely climbing faster than the bank interest rates, and inflation isn't doing anything to offset that. If you look at an Excel spreadsheet tracking inflation-adjusted debt, the math is right there. Say you're looking at 4% inflation and a 7.5% interest rate; that means your debt is actually growing by 11.5% annually relative to the money supply. You can't just pay that back with standard currency. Over a typical 20-year stretch, the debt eventually outpaces the initial money supply in terms of real value. It’s just how it works.

It’s also about that 4% chunk of cash. Sure, the value might have climbed slightly, but now those funds are just sitting there, frozen. You need that liquidity to keep things moving through the system. Honestly, inflation is really the only thing that triggers these payment bottlenecks once it starts piling up over the years. It’s basically just mathematical induction playing out in real time. Can I function without that 4%? Yeah, I can. So, shave off another 4%. Still fine. And another 4%... I can still manage. But eventually, you hit a wall where you just can't anymore. That’s when the crisis actually hits. Suddenly, there's no money left. Payments get delayed, solid companies start folding, people lose their jobs, loans go unpaid, and everything just breaks down.

It all gets paid back during credit expansion—you know, the inflation, the import surges, those terrible investments, all that stuff. Then, once the credit expansion finally hits a wall and stops, everything just surfaces at once. Everyone acts like they’re caught completely off guard, staring around like total idiots. They start asking, "Wait, what happened? We were doing so well just a second ago."

So, there it is. That’s basically why the payments are stalled. It all comes down to the cash flow drying up.

It all boils down to where the money is coming from. You see plenty of posts on this site covering that exact topic. Once those revenue streams dry up, we’re looking at a total crisis..

Hey there.

I was looking through this site about the financial system earlier. It’s interesting stuff. Very technical. A lot of points on how everything connects. I think there's some value here if you actually take the time to sit down and read through the layers. Most people just skim over these kinds of things, but there's a certain logic to it once you get past the initial complexity. It's all very straightforward if you don't overthink the mechanics. Just a lot of data to process. Definitely worth a look for anyone trying to wrap their head around how the money moves.
Profit_community.xls

Maria Thomas48 said:I honestly don't care what money is actually used for. All that matters to me is that it serves its purpose as a way to settle my bills. That's really it.

If you’ve taken a look at that XLS spreadsheet showing the association's profits, you'll see exactly why the payments end up getting stalled after a while.

Here’s why: The middleman sectors—those entities that exist solely to squeeze a little extra off the top for everyone else—are drying up. Eventually, they’ll just vanish because there won't be any indirect profit left to grab. It happens. One day the margins disappear and then suddenly, there's nothing left to facilitate.Next up are the ones who aren't making much money. Because business has dried up, they’re sliding into the red and struggling to stay on top of their bills. Since even the companies already in the hole haven't been hitting their tax obligations to the government, this drop in revenue means the new loss-makers are falling behind on taxes too. It all circles back to the same thing—the government ends up seeing a dip in tax revenue, which shows up as them pushing back payment deadlines for services and products ordered by the state.

It’s the same thing that happens when credit expansion hits a wall. Loans stop growing. Those companies that were once pure sellers suddenly find themselves without any business at all, and they start operating at a loss. You know how the rest goes. It’s like that whole story about the housing contractors who were making money left and right. I'll get to that. Once the loans have to be paid back, there’s less work available because those construction crews aren't out there spending money on anything else anymore. It reminds me of back during the big highway expansion era. Remote parts of the Midwest were absolutely booming during those years. Money was just flying everywhere. Everyone was winning.

People always seem to miss the connection between prosperity and a steady influx of new capital. It’s a simple equation, really. If you can't link the two, then you're just ignoring how things work. Without that constant flow of new money coming into the system, you have to expect stagnation. In fact, it's more than that. You should pretty much count on the whole society regressing. It's just basic logic.

You can pretty much model all of that in a spreadsheet if you want to. But in a real American community, we’re dealing with imports that constantly drain our cash flow, not to mention the inflation we basically import from overseas—like how fuel prices spike and then drag every other price up with them. It just speeds everything up and makes the whole situation worse.

The whole idea that inflation actually drives economic growth? It’s not exactly right. There's definitely a connection there, I guess, but there are consequences too. It's complicated like that. People still don't get it. You can't just conjure up money to cover inflation out of thin air. It only comes from credit. That's just how it works.You could basically compare this kind of inflation that drives the economy to drugs. It makes you feel good in the moment, sure, but it eventually leads you straight to ruin.Nobody can actually fuel inflation through debt because the total amount of debt just grows by the sum of the interest rates and the inflation rate itself. It's basic math.The real debt is definitely climbing faster than the bank interest rates, and inflation isn't doing anything to offset that. If you look at an Excel spreadsheet tracking inflation-adjusted debt, the math is right there. Say you're looking at 4% inflation and a 7.5% interest rate; that means your debt is actually growing by 11.5% annually relative to the money supply. You can't just pay that back with standard currency. Over a typical 20-year stretch, the debt eventually outpaces the initial money supply in terms of real value. It’s just how it works.

It’s also about that 4% chunk of cash. Sure, the value might have climbed slightly, but now those funds are just sitting there, frozen. You need that liquidity to keep things moving through the system. Honestly, inflation is really the only thing that triggers these payment bottlenecks once it starts piling up over the years. It’s basically just mathematical induction playing out in real time. Can I function without that 4%? Yeah, I can. So, shave off another 4%. Still fine. And another 4%... I can still manage. But eventually, you hit a wall where you just can't anymore. That’s when the crisis actually hits. Suddenly, there's no money left. Payments get delayed, solid companies start folding, people lose their jobs, loans go unpaid, and everything just breaks down.

It all gets paid back during credit expansion—you know, the inflation, the import surges, those terrible investments, all that stuff. Then, once the credit expansion finally hits a wall and stops, everything just surfaces at once. Everyone acts like they’re caught completely off guard, staring around like total idiots. They start asking, "Wait, what happened? We were doing so well just a second ago."

So, there it is. That’s basically why the payments are stalled. It all comes down to the cash flow drying up.

It all boils down to where the money is coming from. You see plenty of posts on this site covering that exact topic. Once those revenue streams dry up, we’re looking at a total crisis..

Hey there.

I was looking through this site about the financial system earlier. It’s interesting stuff. Very technical. A lot of points on how everything connects. I think there's some value here if you actually take the time to sit down and read through the layers. Most people just skim over these kinds of things, but there's a certain logic to it once you get past the initial complexity. It's all very straightforward if you don't overthink the mechanics. Just a lot of data to process. Definitely worth a look for anyone trying to wrap their head around how the money moves.
Profit_community.xls

That isn't quite right. The real interest rate is the difference between the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate, rather than their sum. To use your own example, the real interest rate you are paying on a loan would be 7.5 - 4 = 3.5%, not the 11.5% you suggested.

Consequently, if you borrowed $333 at a 7.5% interest rate, you would owe $358 after one year. However, if an item that cost $333 at the moment the loan was taken requires $347 to purchase by the time you repay, then the real profit your creditor realized is merely 35, not $25.

It is much like how, in decades past, one could settle certain debts for the price of a pack of cigarettes; under your logic, such a feat would be impossible.

Furthermore, I struggle to see how, according to your reasoning, anyone manages to repay any debts or loans at all.😁