The Financial System and Money Supply

It’s pretty naive to think that living in a cave would somehow get rid of bartering.

The math behind our financial system doesn't need any fixing. It just proves one thing: you can't actually generate profit for an entire community at once.

Honestly, looking at GDP growth is kind of pointless when you realize money doesn't speed up circulation—it actually slows things down because someone is always busy hoarding profit. This basically means GDP growth is driven by credit, and since credit (well, all credit) can't truly be paid back—because there isn't enough fresh cash entering the system without being tied to even more debt—we're stuck. So, if you ignore inflation, saying the economy is "recovering" just because GDP is going up is silly. In plain English, the economy is just adding more stones to its neck, dragging itself closer to bankruptcy.

Now they're warning us about energy prices spiking this fall, and where is the extra cash supposed to come from to cover those costs? Credit is the only option left. And credit just means more debt. And again, that debt can't really be settled.

Things are going to get worse, and then even worse, while politicians just keep recycling the same old lines. Economists will spend their time explaining why we failed, but nobody wants to admit that a system built on credit acting as new money can never actually create prosperity. We essentially codified that reality into law through the Federal Reserve Act.

Cheers
sites.google.com/site/finacijskisustav/home

Maria Thomas48, you are absolutely correct, and an increasing number of people globally are beginning to realize that your perspective is the right one. I have synthesized these modern views on currency into a single formula which demonstrates that new money must be released into circulation as a gift rather than as debt. For non-credit money to function as a gift, an additional amount of money in circulation (dM) is required, calculated as a percentage (k) of the existing money supply (M).
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ; k = 5%, for example.
If non-credit money is issued according to this formula, inflation becomes impossible, meaning this money represents real value and accurately measures real costs and prices. Credit-based money, however, enters circulation as debt, which artificially inflates real costs and prices to meet nominal levels. Nominal cost (price) = real cost (price) + debt. Because credit-based money is nothing more than debt, it lacks the inherent substance to cover the entire nominal cost. This is the root cause of the perpetual inflation seen with credit-based money. If we refuse to accept inflation, then an economic crisis becomes inevitable. China issues non-credit money in the form of gifts through non-performing loans—debts that are never repaid but are instead written off and erased from the books. Consequently, China maintains prices that are 45% lower than global averages, which implies they are essentially writing off 45% of their credits and converting them into gifts, or non-credit money. Furthermore, the gap between net and gross earnings in China is almost negligible, suggesting that China utilizes non-credit money as a substitute for taxation. This is precisely why China is developing with such overwhelming force. Until the USA resolves its reliance on credit-based money, China will soon become unreachable for the USA. Contrary to common misconceptions, incomes in China are by no means small. China is already the most powerful nation on earth; if it hasn't achieved that status yet, it certainly will shortly.

And how exactly does China plan to sustain that kind of growth? It isn't nearly as simple as it looks.
Once you inflate GDP through loans, debt, and handouts—call it whatever you want—that growth becomes unsustainable. It can't go up forever. Eventually, you hit stagnation or a full-blown decline. And then what? The only economies with actual long-term prospects are those that reward hard work, net savings, and investment fueled by those savings. Up until now, the Chinese have had plenty of that. But relying on "gifts" is dangerous; it sends the message that profit isn't earned through labor. Besides, who decides who gets a gift and who doesn't? When you combine handouts with increased consumption—which is exactly what China is doing by boosting imports—you undermine the value of labor and income. A nation on that path is headed for an abyss; inflation or deflation are just the inevitable results. If you want to import goods, you need to be able to pay for them with real earnings.
Relying on gifts while simultaneously ramping up imports is a guaranteed recipe for failure in the long run. The winning formula remains labor, net savings, and investment. And the absolute prerequisite for all of that is the rule of law. That said, I agree with Maria Thomas48 that this current system is unsustainable. The sheer scale of credit expansion and greed is massive...

Gregory Williams7 said:Look, for every single argument you try to construct to support your money-printing theory, I could find a thousand counterpoints to dismantle it at any given moment. This isn't because I claim to be an economist or some kind of expert. It is simply because your theory is riddled with holes. If we were to build a computer model to simulate your printing scheme in practice, you would see the disastrous results for yourself.

Just remember this one vital point. Money is merely paper with a bit of ink on it. No matter how much of it you print, it remains nothing more than paper. You won't suddenly have more televisions, or more iPhones, or more crops just because you printed extra cash. Therefore, you can conclude that you have contributed absolutely nothing to the economy, other than wasting vast amounts of paper and ink.

Mathematical equations are famous because of that whole "triple deficit equality" identity you see in economic science. I’ve actually gone ahead and reduced those equations for the external trade balance—basically setting the exchange balance to zero. The fact that economists never bother to comment on what these results actually mean within a real-world, purely credit-based system is just a way to cover up a massive scam. Fractional reserve banking is a scam. Your own opinion, despite being a trained economist, serves as proof of that. It's simple: they just didn't teach this in school, so you don't really have a clue. Honestly, it would be better if you just admitted you weren't taught this instead of making these baseless arguments.

I’ve laid out the math with examples that just can't be argued with. People can try to tweak the numbers all they want, but at the end of the day, the result always lines up perfectly with the equations.

99% of economists just can't wrap their heads around this truth, and they refuse to accept it because:

That would mean he’s basically admitting his knowledge is incomplete. Like, he’s actually conceding that he isn't an expert.
I just can't wrap my head around it. It’s honestly hard to accept that such a simple proof—something an economic layman could pull together—is sitting right there, completely unassailable.
They’re finally starting to realize that the entire economic policy of this country is a total house of cards. It just doesn't hold up under any scrutiny. It clearly isn't going to work. And the kicker? The people behind all of this were supposedly the top economists in the business. Truly unbelievable.
Conspiracy theories aren't really just theories anymore. It's actually becoming proven practice.
It’s becoming pretty obvious that economic programs are intentionally keeping people uneducated. It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around because everyone treats their professors like they’re some kind of untouchable saints.
It’s just proof that modern economics isn't actually a science. It doesn't rely on any scientifically proven methods. I mean, the derivative I worked out—showing exactly why the system needs extra money injected to prevent a long-term economic collapse—is irrefutable. It should be the bedrock of a nation's economy. But because the logic leads to anti-capitalist conclusions, they probably don't teach it in capitalist countries. Still, it’s pretty stupid that there wasn't any real scientific study on this during the socialist era, either. Stojan Nenandović is a perfect example of how you couldn't even write scientific papers about this stuff back then, like that piece "Non-Credit Money as a Gift." And I even heard about someone else whose thesis was rejected just because the topic was "fractional reserve banking is a scam."

And honestly, if you can dig up a thousand arguments against it, I still don't get why you can't just spot the error in the triple deficit equality that all those derived formulas are built on.

You don't even need to go looking for a mistake, because there isn't one. The flaw lies entirely within the education system itself. I mean, think about it—why won't a single economics department or university ever want to address this topic head-on? It’s pretty obvious. They would just embarrass themselves if they actually tried to give an answer. And why does every single economist go silent the moment they first encounter this issue? Because they can't debunk the evidence. They simply refuse to admit that a layman might actually be right. It is pure scientific madness.

The economy is falling apart. More and more companies are just folding left and right, yet you keep insisting that everything is under control and that this is somehow how things are supposed to work. It’s frustrating. You refuse to admit that the math simply doesn't add up. If you look at the equations, it's clear: the economy is bound to shrink because we're eventually going to run out of actual cash in circulation. We'll be left with nothing but a mountain of debt.

Look, I’ll give you a plain, common-sense example because clearly something isn't adding up here. Let’s say you take out a million-dollar loan to cover a debt that actually totals a million and three hundred thousand dollars. That means you have to scrape together an extra three hundred thousand dollars from somewhere. If every single person in this country did that, we’d be looking at a total national debt of 1.2 trillion dollars. Even if only half the population did it, we’re still staring down 600 billion in debt. So, what's your plan for finding that 600 billion? Are you going to pull it from the other half of the population? Where is that money supposed to come from? And what happens if we run this cycle a few more times? There isn't some magical place where money just grows like weeds so you can just go out and collect it. Exporting isn't a magic fix either, because any functional nation needs to operate within a balanced trade system. Your grasp on economics is falling apart because you aren't offering any actual solutions. What you learned isn't the whole story. The part they left out is the part that explains how fractional reserve banking is a scam.

The exact same thing happens when you try to build up cash profits through saving and accumulating gains. The math proves it’s possible, but it also proves that not everyone can save—or even just break even—regardless of how hard they work. Because the total amount of money is a fixed sum, while some people accumulate wealth, others end up accumulating deficits until they eventually go bankrupt. It’s incredibly obvious in a game of poker, yet in economics, this is masked by credit. Credit hides the initial lack of liquid cash for savings, and then makes things much worse later by generating debts that simply cannot be repaid.

And the public is still just clueless about what is actually happening. They don't understand the Federal Reserve's mandates or what it actually means when there is no primary issuance of non-credit money into the government budget. They don't get that every single loan is a generator of debt. They don't realize that credits cause inflation, and then inflation feeds on more credit, creating a cycle of irreversible debt. They fail to see that no successful company in the domestic market could exist if there weren't companies losing money. And the government doesn't care about solving the crisis; they only care about staying in power. Instead of doing anything to fix the situation, the administration would rather just focus on petitions for the next election. Now we have this new "Robin Hood" gimmick being pushed—a tax on banks. As if banks are printing money. They aren't. They are printing debt. A tax on issued debt won't pull us out of this. Even if it were a 100% effective measure, it wouldn't change a thing.

Based on the data and information I have regarding movements in other, much more advanced nations, I can predict with 100% certainty that our government's moves will result in nothing that changes the fundamental direction of our situation. At most, they might trim some unnecessary costs or take out loans just to pay off existing ones. Any global price increases are only going to make the situation worse.

How do I see this so clearly when other economists don't? Because I know that loans can only be repaid with real money, not by taking out more loans. I know that the state cannot just extract as much money from its citizens as it wants; it all depends on the balance of trade. And ours is negative. That means there is no money available to repay the debt. So when officials claim that our lenders trust us, the real truth is that the lenders just believe they won't be the last ones left holding the bag, and they'll collect their payment from the next lender in line. Long live ignorance.

Regarding the printing of money—or rather, the issuance of non-credit money into the budget—I've touched on this before. Right now, the issuance of non-credit money is limited to what the Fed provides against collateral. This is obviously far too little and stays well below the rate of inflation. There is also the issue of maintaining the exchange rate, given the high probability that the Fed could run out of foreign reserves. That's a topic unto itself. However, if we focus solely on protecting the exchange rate and end up destroying the entire economy in the process, I don't think that's the path we want to take. The problem is that there isn't much economic literature on non-credit money. Therefore, it's hard to find a good practical example. There are plenty of bad examples where money was issued without backing. I always compare it to medicine. For instance, honey is healthy, but eating 1kg of honey a day will definitely kill you after a while. Water is necessary, but drinking 20 liters a day will also kill you eventually. It's the same with money issuance. New money should be money used for savings and cash profits, and it must be tied to actual labor. That is only a small fraction of total commerce. Any distribution of money that isn't backed by labor devalues both the currency and the hard work of others. The basic rule for a healthy population is: there is no money without work. Everyone who is healthy but receiving social assistance must be socially engaged (charity work, cleaning up neighborhoods, helping elderly households, etc.). Companies contracted by the state shouldn't be making extra profits on those specific jobs because that devalues the money. Because of this, any firm working for the government should be under extra operational oversight. Public tenders are easily manipulated by rigging requirements or having bidders create fake offers to artificially drive up prices. All of this looks less like capitalism, but it is the only way toward prosperity. Issued money can only hold value this way, preventing devaluation. It is difficult to maintain all of this under conditions of imported inflation since we lack energy independence. People are already starting to say we need an energy independence plan. Food independence is also vital. But why even talk about this when people refuse to see the obvious? An exclusively credit-based system leads straight to ruin. It's like casting pearls before swine. Everything will become clear once it is finally realized that a system without non-credit money leads nowhere but to misery and collapse.

Hey there

The link was broken before. It's fixed now.

sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Robert Vaughn10 said:And how exactly does China plan to sustain that kind of growth? It isn't nearly as simple as it looks.
Once you inflate GDP through loans, debt, and handouts—call it whatever you want—that growth becomes unsustainable. It can't go up forever. Eventually, you hit stagnation or a full-blown decline. And then what? The only economies with actual long-term prospects are those that reward hard work, net savings, and investment fueled by those savings. Up until now, the Chinese have had plenty of that. But relying on "gifts" is dangerous; it sends the message that profit isn't earned through labor. Besides, who decides who gets a gift and who doesn't? When you combine handouts with increased consumption—which is exactly what China is doing by boosting imports—you undermine the value of labor and income. A nation on that path is headed for an abyss; inflation or deflation are just the inevitable results. If you want to import goods, you need to be able to pay for them with real earnings.
Relying on gifts while simultaneously ramping up imports is a guaranteed recipe for failure in the long run. The winning formula remains labor, net savings, and investment. And the absolute prerequisite for all of that is the rule of law. That said, I agree with Maria Thomas48 that this current system is unsustainable. The sheer scale of credit expansion and greed is massive...

We always end up asking why one person succeeds while another fails. If you look at 100 companies, maybe one is a massive success, while most are just average or way below par.

From a statistical standpoint, there is always a chance that a country shows up at exactly the right moment. They can capitalize on Western stupidity—that constant obsession with profit margins—and high living standards to maintain huge export numbers for decades. My expectation is that China will actually become less competitive as they continue to develop. Though, I don't have the specific data on the actual money flows.

The only thing I've heard is that the Chinese get grants to move operations abroad specifically to drive the export of Chinese goods. I also heard that the government pays for the shipping costs from China to the final destination for certain goods. If that's true, then it’s perfectly logical that Chinese products are cheap.

High-tech manufacturing moved to China (and India) simply because of greed and the hunt for higher margins. But I am certain that this credit-heavy system played a role too—the kind of system that was killing economies back home by driving up production costs through higher interest rates on new money. I also read some things suggesting that mystery banking players are also pouring profits into China and India by building up plantations, which creates competition for domestic goods through cheap imports. That just kills the local economy further. The investment goes overseas with the specific goal of starting production that eventually wipes out domestic manufacturing. The moves are quite clever. And obviously, it won't go on forever because trying to grow an economy for a billion people already has heavy consequences on the price of raw materials and ore. That ends up hitting Western industry's competitiveness again.

Everyone knows what globalization really means. For the little guy, it's nothing, but for corporations, it's a fantastic way to squeeze more profit and find loopholes to lower worker wages (look at the European Union and labor migration). In the end, this won't bring anything good to either China or Europe. You can't have high standards or high consumption if wages are low. Now, apparently, China is the top market for luxury goods. Since a good portion of those luxury items are actually produced in China, it will likely start shrinking the Chinese trade surplus because the foreign owners will be pulling the profits out. How much that actually impacts things is a real question.

Regards

Maria Thomas48, I find myself in agreement with you and will accept your theory regarding the three deficits. However, I maintain that my own theory concerning the three dimensions of commodity value is the most straightforward approach, providing perhaps the deepest explanation of the core essence of economic science. Throughout history, economists have fruitlessly hunted for a single, absolute measure of value. Marx concluded that this was simply the labor embodied within the goods. Conversely, bourgeois economists argued that value is merely subjective utility. Marx believed use-value was an immeasurable quality, while goods were exchanged based on exchange value because they contained equal amounts of labor; thus, he collapsed all three values into one: human labor. Even the preeminent bourgeois theorist Alfred Marshall posited that every good possesses three distinct prices—supply price, demand price, and market price—which, in a state of equilibrium, all converge into a single market price. In his view, everyone is left with just one dimension of value. My contention is different: every commodity possesses three distinct, equally valid dimensions of value that are quantitatively unique: cost, market price, and utility.
Certain types of income are derived from costs, representing necessary utility. Other incomes stem from non-credit money, representing surplus utility. The market price essentially divides this surplus utility between producer profit and consumer surplus.
The sum of all costs within a society represents its minimum value.
The sum of all market prices constitutes the middle value, which is the society's GDP. This is calculated as: costs plus profits.
The total sum of all income in a society represents the society's total utility.
This is equivalent to: GDP plus consumer surplus.
Consequently, we have income derived from costs and income derived from non-credit money. Assuming there is no inflation, our prices remain real. An increase in labor productivity and production efficiency lowers our costs. Meanwhile, increasing consumption rationality boosts our income, or utility. This manifests through a deceleration in the velocity of money, effectively reducing demand. While supply continues to climb, demand steadily decreases as the velocity of money slows. Supply must always exceed demand to ensure all goods are sold, and non-credit money serves this purpose by acting as a gift.
This "non-credit money as a gift" is defined as the necessary additional amount of money in circulation (dM), calculated as a percentage (k) of the existing money supply (M).
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ; for example, k = 5%.
If non-credit money is issued as a gift according to this formula, inflation becomes an impossibility. Taxes and debts would be offset by the amount of non-credit money issued. Consumers would pay less, and producers would receive more than they do under today’s credit-based money system. Everyone receives a windfall from this non-credit money. The source of this money lies in the advancement of economic rationality; non-credit money essentially monetizes progress. There exists both national and global non-credit money (derived from international trade). The time has come to establish both a national and a global system for non-credit money.
Biagio Bossone, who once served as an executive at the World Bank and the IMF, was appointed to lead a working group tasked with preparing proposals for the G-20 Summit in London. On March 8, 2009, he wrote, "We propose a non-credit money system, where money creation is separate from lending." That article was subsequently scrubbed from the website archives, and Bossone was removed as the head of the working group. Non-credit money was conspicuously absent from the Summit's agenda. At least for now.

If non-credit money were issued as a gift, credit wouldn't even exist. Or, if it did, it would be such an insignificant part of the system that you could practically ignore it. Why? Because nobody would bother offering credit. I know myself—I certainly won't be lending anything if it's just given away for free. Understand this: without interest, there is no credit.

Interest acts as a representation of additional labor performed over time.

At times, interest becomes unsustainable.

Consider this: if your annual labor output is $33, then the credit you take out $33 combined with your various expenses $33 creates a trap. If your productivity grows by 4% annually, but your interest rate sits at 6%, you will never pay back that debt. The debt simply grows faster than your ability to work.

If the math is different, the system functions, and you eventually settle the debt.

The current system relies on people not hoarding cash. You save in everything except currency, because saving cash pulls liquidity out of the system, which is a fundamental problem.
However, depositing money in a bank isn't an issue since that capital remains within the system; the system manages this through inflation and interest paid on savings.

You are all focusing on this specific model where total debt exceeds GDP growth, making repayment impossible. Fine. In that case, let us forget about interest and simply focus on slowly repaying the principal. That scenario applies to only a handful of nations currently facing such conditions.

How did the system actually function back when gold and silver served as our primary currency? Even then, interest was still charged on loans.

What were they supposed to "print" to meet rising demand? Where does new gold enter the system to allow for the repayment of debt?

It comes from new labor and increased consumption. Person A lends to Person B, who gradually repays Person A. Meanwhile, Person A spends that money with Person C, who then spends it with Person B, completing the cycle back to Person A. Money moves in a continuous loop. The credit is settled without needing to mint additional gold, leaving everyone satisfied.

The true solution to this dilemma lies in halting the printing of money altogether, rather than printing even more. That is the only way to fix the underlying issues. Anything else is merely a temporary fix that digs our hole even deeper.

Gregory Williams7, non-credit money represents a newly minted volume of capital required specifically to match increased production and the surplus of unsold inventory resulting from sluggish velocity; once that velocity accelerates, all goods find their buyers. Half of this non-credit money remains with consumers as disposable income, which they can then deposit into banks to earn interest. The other half flows to producers, who realize pure profits that can be reinvested, saved, or lent out as credit. In a system built on non-credit money, we would see far greater levels of savings and credit than we do today, under a regime where money is manufactured as debt, bloating costs and burdening everyone. Because non-credit money acts as a gift, it doesn't inflate prices or create additional overhead, ultimately benefiting both the buyer through lower costs and the seller through higher margins. Consumers retain more wealth because prices stay down, while sellers secure profits that would otherwise be drained by taxes or debt servicing. This results in genuine earnings. Inflation vanishes. There are no crises for banks or the broader economy. Everyone wins—from the average consumer to the capitalists, entrepreneurs, and even the traditional bankers who manage deposits and issue loans without risk, since every loan is backed by actual savings. The only ones who lose are the massive, elite bankers currently ruling the world without mandate or necessity. They keep the entire globe in debt slavery, accumulating such vast wealth that they have lost all sense of purpose. Their reign will end, and with it, the era of speculation. We will finally have a functional, normal world.

Fine. So we are talking about agricultural subsidies, veteran pensions, student grants, and all that other capital pumped into the system every year just to keep the public looking the other way. What is the actual difference?

It’s honestly pretty wild how people defend the credit-based constitution like it’s one of the Ten Commandments or something. They guard it so fiercely. And the crazy part? Nobody even questions it anymore. It’s just treated like some kind of religious dogma that you aren't allowed to doubt.

There are a few things we actually agree on:

We need more money. Why? It doesn't really matter. What are the solutions?

So, credit just keeps growing and growing? It feels like that. Everything seems to be piling up.
The issuance of non-credit money.

We have inflation. Why? Honestly, it doesn't really matter right now. What matters are the solutions.

Is credit just getting bigger and bigger? It seems that way. Everything keeps climbing.
Maybe there's a way to actually bring inflation down using non-credit money. It's a thought. Just an idea floating around.

What exactly does Solution A actually give us? It just hands us debts. We're talking about real, tangible debt built entirely on the foundation of imaginary credit value. And let’s be clear—that credit isn't even someone's actual savings; it's just a tiny fraction of it. You simply cannot pay off real-world debt using imaginary credit when there's an even larger mountain of real debt sitting right behind it. Fractional reserve banking is a scam.

If you handed your kids 100 tokens to play with and then told them you’d be back in a week demanding 150 tokens, they’d call you out instantly. They’d tell you that you’ve lost your mind. Kids see right through that. It's obvious because you're asking for more than what was originally put on the table. Yet, somehow, this logic passes with adults all the time. Banks operate exactly like this. If you follow the math, the only logical conclusion is that money is growing somewhere, just sitting there waiting to be collected at will. But if it isn't actually growing—because, well, that's not how the laws of physics or economics work—then we are dealing with mystery banking. Or, to be blunt, a total scam.

So, we’re left with Solution B. The whole mystery banking thing just disappears and we finally face reality. But reality requires some ground rules for how money is actually issued, because let's be honest, a colored piece of paper isn't inherently valuable. You can't just print non-credit money in whatever massive quantities you feel like. You have to limit it to an amount that allows for sustainable growth without totally nuking the value of the currency through inflation.

The whole setup with central banks relying solely on credit to pump out money is just a scam. It’s all built on nothing. Every single one of these money shows is actually just a show about creating new debt. You take a credit amount, subtract the installments, and what you're left with is just debt. That debt isn't actually issued as real money, and there’s just no proof it even exists.

It’s happening in the economy too. You take small savings on raw materials, add some extra labor, and try to squeeze out a bigger revenue stream. But that gap between what you bring in and what you actually spend? It isn't ever issued as real cash. There is just no proof it will actually exist. It means every single manufacturer operating on a profit by selling goods is essentially issuing a tiny bit of debt into the system. If they blow all that profit immediately, it cancels itself out. But if they start hoarding it, it creates this subtle shortage of actual money in circulation.

So, here’s the thing. We have banks and big corporations constantly pumping debt into the system. But there isn't really a counterbalance to offset that massive buildup of debt because non-credit money just doesn't enter the loop. Sure, governments try to cancel out that accumulated debt by taking out loans to cover their budget deficits, but it's a trap. Once they finally tighten their belts and stop being so wasteful, the whole economy—and eventually the entire banking system—just collapses. A country can't just keep borrowing forever. They could technically issue actual, non-credit money. But why don't they? Because everyone is terrified of uncontrolled money printing and the threat of hyperinflation. It’s funny, though. Nobody seems nearly as scared of the debt levels spiraling out of control. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to decide how much money is printed based on some arbitrary decree; it should be based on solid arguments. But people aren't actually working on those arguments. Not really. In fact, nothing is being done. There's still this persistent idea that the only way out is through "sound fiscal policy" and austerity. That’s just wishful thinking. It has nothing to do with how this system actually functions. I could easily prove that if you play strictly by the current rules, there is zero chance of a country ever paying off its debt, even if they maintain a perfectly balanced trade surplus.

So, really, the best move is just to focus on proving that fractional reserve banking is a scam. If we can actually prove that this whole system is a fraud, then we know for sure that the current path is a dead end. It means there has to be some other way forward, something else entirely, to actually find a solution.

We all know why this whole system is broken. The government doesn't actually have control over the money supply anymore. Instead, they use this credit surrogate that serves one purpose only: creating a cycle of debt slavery. It’s designed specifically to benefit nothing but the big bankers at the top. The government having total control over printing cash doesn't exactly guarantee prosperity. Honestly, looking back at history, they print way too much money far too often. It’s enough to give you a headache.

Isn't it about time we finally found the real key to non-credit issuance, instead of just endlessly defending this whole system of legalized robbery and credit-based looting?

Best regards,

sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

I am not defending the system itself. I am defending my savings—the dollars and cents I have worked for—which people like you would simply wipe out by printing "unbacked" money. You can call it whatever you want, even garbage, but the moment you print more, my hard-earned wealth loses its value. It is that simple. What was the point of me working and saving all these years? Was it just so people like you could print more paper, hand it out to everyone, and watch my life savings evaporate? To hell with an economy like that.

There is no deep philosophy here. I am a saver and an investor. My goal is to protect what I have built.
You are a debtor. Your goal is to shrink what you owe.

You advocate for uncontrolled money printing to erase your debts and artificially inflate your lifestyle.
I advocate for halting the issuance of new currency so that my savings and investments gain value, allowing me to increase my standard of living.

These are two opposing mindsets that will never align because our fundamental goals are diametrically opposed.

The government should not have control over the minting of currency. The state is a consumer, and by its very nature, it is prone to corruption. Any entity that acts as both a consumer and a corrupt actor will spend money without restraint. Money must be issued by an independent institution that then provides its earnings to the government.

My sole objective is to preserve, protect, and grow my wealth. Every time Rohatinski Suker says "no," I sleep a little better at night.

The theory you are promoting might work in a closed system with a single issuer and a single spender. But in a system where the issuer is also a massive spender, a debtor, and a creditor all at once, that logic fails. History has repeatedly proven that such a system is fundamentally broken.

One must finally realize that money itself isn't the true measure of value. Rather, it is the labor required to earn that money that matters. The system doesn't suffer from a lack of additional working hours; it suffers because there isn't enough labor to justify the capital needed to pay for it. There is more than enough liquidity in existence.

The "money shortages" we observe within certain entities do not exist because the system lacks funds. Instead, the system lacks the actual labor that would generate the revenue necessary to settle outstanding debts.

If you find yourself lacking "paper" currency, why not negotiate a deal to repay your debt through hours of service, materials, or other tangible goods? There is no need to print more paper.

Maria Thomas48, the key to issuing non-credit money lies in the formula I have provided: dM = kM; where k = (supply - demand)/demand; for instance, k = 5%.
If you issue 5% non-credit money, inflation becomes an impossibility. Should you miss the mark and experience inflation by a certain percentage, you simply withdraw that same percentage from circulation, much like a budget surplus or an unspent tax. Conversely, if you undershoot and find yourself short by a certain percentage, you inject additional money into the system for that specific amount. Money is added as a gift and withdrawn via a budget surplus or untaxed revenue. In a short period, one will accurately gauge how much non-credit money needs to be in circulation, even without statistical data or formal economic training. The greatest monetarist of the 20th century, Milton Friedman, concluded that there should be no monetary policy at all, as such interventions merely invite economic chaos. He proposed instead that money enter circulation annually at a constant rate—perhaps 5%, 3%, or 2%. Given the growth of the Chinese economy and the deficits seen in various nations, that growth rate should currently sit at 12%, and it will undoubtedly climb higher in the future. I embraced this concept immediately, though I found it curious that Friedman believed this could be achieved through credit money; he failed to realize that this concept can only be realized through non-credit money issued as a gift. I wrote to Friedman regarding this, yet he failed to grasp my point, and all his attempts worldwide have ultimately ended in failure. Reagan diverged from Friedman and, contrary to his advice, pursued a policy of a 3% budget deficit, which was sufficient at the time to collapse communism and ensure the USA remained the sole global superpower. Since then, in Europe, a 3% deficit has been considered normal, yet they cannot fathom that a 12% deficit is now the standard. A budget deficit is essentially a method of issuing non-credit money. The budget deficit, Maria Thomas48, is covered by non-credit money in the exact same way I describe it. The only difference is that he calls it covering a deficit, whereas I call it an increase in income that must exceed expenditures. This is a fundamental requirement for the development of a modern society, yet Friedman insisted I could not understand that "profit is also a cost." A cost is a cost, while profit represents a portion of utility that exceeds that cost. Friedman's stance is indistinguishable from the Marxist view.

Gregory Williams7 said:One must finally realize that money itself isn't the true measure of value. Rather, it is the labor required to earn that money that matters. The system doesn't suffer from a lack of additional working hours; it suffers because there isn't enough labor to justify the capital needed to pay for it. There is more than enough liquidity in existence.

The "money shortages" we observe within certain entities do not exist because the system lacks funds. Instead, the system lacks the actual labor that would generate the revenue necessary to settle outstanding debts.

If you find yourself lacking "paper" currency, why not negotiate a deal to repay your debt through hours of service, materials, or other tangible goods? There is no need to print more paper.

Broadly speaking, we've just been pumping up the system with credit since 1994. But there’s a catch—those loans eventually have to be paid back with interest. You either pay them down using the cash that was already circulating or you use a surplus from foreign trade. Since we don't have that surplus, and there isn't really any other way around it, the logical conclusion is that there should actually be less money in circulation as those debts get settled. But that didn't happen. Instead, credit just kept expanding until very recently. So, if you look at it generally, there might still be some money left floating around—unless it all got swallowed up by imports—but most of it has probably just been converted into liquid profits for various corporations and individuals. It's basically sitting there as cash reserves. Still, when you factor in our debts from all that credit expansion, they outweigh the savings. So, if you do the math and look at the total sum, the money just isn't there.

Gregory Williams7 said:One must finally realize that money itself isn't the true measure of value. Rather, it is the labor required to earn that money that matters. The system doesn't suffer from a lack of additional working hours; it suffers because there isn't enough labor to justify the capital needed to pay for it. There is more than enough liquidity in existence.

The "money shortages" we observe within certain entities do not exist because the system lacks funds. Instead, the system lacks the actual labor that would generate the revenue necessary to settle outstanding debts.

If you find yourself lacking "paper" currency, why not negotiate a deal to repay your debt through hours of service, materials, or other tangible goods? There is no need to print more paper.

You’ve got this all wrong. It’s just basic human nature for businesses and individuals to save money and chase profits, which naturally pulls cash out of circulation when they aren't reinvesting it. But thinking that a fixed, stagnant amount of money is the solution? That’s just not how things work. That approach turns the whole economy into a game of poker. And in poker, everyone doesn't win; there’s only one winner who takes the entire pot. It’s really just a matter of time before that happens.

I totally get why you're worried about your savings. You can always just hold onto your money in Euros if that makes you feel better. Personally, I don't have any debt, so I don't really have a skin in the game when it comes to pushing for non-credit money. It's not about me. It's about what's best for everyone else.

First off, you've got the wrong focus if you think introducing non-credit money is definitely what drives inflation. Why aren't you making an argument for getting rid of credit entirely? It’s those same credits during periods of credit expansion that cause absolute chaos. When the government pumps out massive amounts of credit, they naively see this huge spike in GDP and all this incoming tax revenue and customs duties. Our brilliant economists take note of the growth. Everything gets spent immediately. You end up with higher wages, too. Well, of course you do. Then the unions step in and demand that the surplus be funneled straight into paychecks. And that just keeps going for years. You don't say a word about any of that back then. So, it's pretty obvious we're all just living on credit for something that hasn't even happened yet. In reality, what we should actually be seeing is a massive influx of non-credit money.It’s just that he’s the only one you can actually use to cover interest payments on loans. And you aren't even complaining about it. But those interest rates? They're basically made up. Real money is never actually issued just to pay off interest.

So, what's your take on that?

It’s like that old example with kids playing games. You can't just hand children 100 poker chips at a casino table and then turn around demanding they give you 150 back. Kids don't actually produce those chips. Someone else has to manufacture them in the first place so the kids have something to receive or earn before they can ever hand them over to you.

So, basically, the system is short on cash for interest payments—if we’re just looking at the banks—specifically regarding retained bank profits, once you subtract operating costs.

And there's one more major thing here. I don't get how you can't see that labor can't be converted into actual wealth if there isn't a source of money. The example of two people stuck on a deserted island proves this point.

Take yourself, for instance. You say you've saved some money. How did that happen? It's simple. You found a source of money and traded part of your labor for it. When you look in your wallet, you see savings that represent your past work. But the rest of the system sees a monetary loss (not talking about the value of the service you provided, just the cash itself). If a million workers all try to act the same way, the system experiences a million monetary losses. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, that monetary loss accumulates within the system too. Economists explain this as a slowdown in the circulation of money. It’s natural and expected. Everyone wants to have savings after decades of working. Your demand that non-credit money shouldn't be introduced actually conflicts with what you want, which is to increase your savings and materialize your past labor into cash.

The second thing is wanting that savings to hold its value. I agree with you there. Matthew Patel12 explained that it's possible. He's been swimming in these waters for decades, after all. I would argue that in a self-sufficient, isolated system, that would probably work. The problem is this transition period and the depletion of conventional energy sources. That's why I advocate for energy and food independence. With that, you can easily balance trade deficits and stay independent of foreign currency. Automatically, the issue of exchange rate stability—the thing that bothers you—becomes easier to manage by limiting imports. This is only necessary because of speculative trading and a lack of trust in our currency. Not to mention, a disciplined non-credit issuance of the Dollar could potentially be more stable than other currencies (like the Swiss Franc).

Now, I'm not advocating for printing money like Germany did before WWII just to pay off debts. In hyperinflation, you can't even talk about "non-credit money"; you're talking about unbacked money. There's a distinction there. Matthew Patel12 explained nicely how much is needed, and in his last message, he mentioned as much as 12% of the budget. That's doable since the budget is 50% of the GDP. So that would be 6% of the GDP. And from what I've heard, interest is over 6% of the GDP. Which practically means we're in a bind, because at this stage, it's too late to introduce non-credit money without reducing debt. And we know we can't pay off the debt in foreign currency because we don't have enough of it. All that's left is an export-oriented approach, which I believe in a little.

Let's say. If banks practiced real banking—lending only what they actually have—there definitely wouldn't be inflation (which is caused by a massive money supply from credit), and soon (within a few years, not decades) we'd see money shortage problems. Economists would use their brains, realize they're short on cash, and decide to issue it non-creditically rather than through credit like they do now.

I agree that politicians shouldn't have the absolute right to issue non-credit money. Issuance should go through the budget and be decided by the Federal Reserve based on precise calculations (Matthew Patel12 has some ideas he says might work). Also, there should be a limit on taking out loans where the interest exceeds 50% of the future annual non-credit money (a moratorium). Just so some idiot doesn't get the bright idea to borrow more than can ever be paid back.

So now I'm asking you. Even if we start with non-credit money. What about the sixteen years when it didn't exist? That's also a question for Mr. Matthew Patel12. What is the transitional solution for fixing the broken curve? That would definitely hit the value of the Dollar. It would certainly be better to reduce external debt instead (the government could take over private loans and pay them off at a discount, while the borrower pays normally—all just to ensure no undeserved wealth is created).

Regards.

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

Keeping cash under a mattress doesn't hurt the economy.

The current system, with its interest rates and inflation, basically forces people to keep money moving. It prevents people from saving in assets that pull liquidity out of the system—sort of like how things worked when we traded in gold. If you saved gold, it was removed from circulation, which could theoretically lead to a "money shortage." Nowadays, through various loopholes, they've built a system where doing that just isn't profitable, so it doesn't happen.

Not quite. 😉

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

You could look at it that way within the credit system. Every single dollar someone decides to hold onto basically creates a shortage of cash in circulation. But honestly, locking your money away in a bank account doesn't really change the math or make things any better.

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

Yes and no. As an economist, you get it—banks can issue multiple times more in loans based on just your single deposit. From a development standpoint, that’s great, but economically speaking, it creates this massive surge in the money supply that inevitably drives up inflation. It almost feels like you'd be better off not giving your savings to the bank at all. Of course, that only works if every single saver does the exact same thing. If they did, the bank wouldn't have the deposits necessary to hand out those huge loans, and any resulting crisis would be minor. We could actually address the issues much sooner. But instead, we just keep stacking up debt, while only a tiny fraction of people ever bother to write about actual solutions.

Besides that—and I’ve already touched on this in my previous posts—when you leave money sitting in a bank, they're basically using your deposit as leverage to pull even more cash into circulation. It’s how they play with both your account and theirs. Even when people try to save, it doesn't actually help the economy much because there isn't enough non-credit money flowing in to keep things moving. If there was a steady stream of non-credit money flowing in, we could actually put loans to work for real development. You could take those credits, use them to build things, and then just pay them back using that non-credit inflow. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.It’s all just one big scam, honestly. Once you hit a certain volume of debt, you simply can't pay it back anymore. The interest rates end up eclipsing the actual principal you started with. It's just how it works.

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

I think you might have skimmed over my previous posts. The whole system is basically a scam, and you can see it clearly just by looking at inflation. That whole "buy low, sell high" cycle—basically just middleman profiteering—is one of the main triggers for inflation. No actual new value is being added to the world, yet everyone is hunting for a profit. It’s only natural that the money supply has to inflate. On top of that, inflation is actually a practical way they've tried to manage things, like taking out massive new loans just to pay off the old ones. But honestly, it's hard to pull off long-term because when you're inflating the money supply to cover debt, you end up drowning in the sum of the interest plus the inflation itself. A Eureka for economists? The logical conclusion here is simple: any positive bank interest rate eventually leads to infinite debt, faster or slower, because of that inflationary borrowing. You're essentially increasing the money supply through credit just to stay afloat. I find myself wondering... should I really be the one breaking the ice and writing about stuff that people should have figured out a long time ago?

It’s honestly wild that an economist can look at a system with a finite amount of money and actually believe it’s a viable solution. Take the EU, for example. If they were to somehow double their population over the next 200 years—though who even knows what the world will look like then—how could you possibly think the current money supply would still be enough? You're basically assuming that in two centuries, absolutely nobody will manage to save a single cent or pull any capital out of circulation. It's a strange way to look at things. I suppose if we were dealing with a population shrinking by 3% every year, the math might make sense, but under these conditions? Not really.

Hey there.

I was looking through this site again today—sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home—and it really gets you thinking about how everything is interconnected. It’s one of those corners of the internet that just sits there, quietly making points about the way our financial systems actually function under the hood. Most people don't spend much time digging into the structural mechanics of money, they just accept the status quo, I guess. But if you look closely at the way capital flows, especially when you start applying some of those classic economic theories we all studied, things start to look a bit different. It's about the foundation. If the foundation is shaky, the whole house is eventually going to tilt. Just an observation.

Maria Thomas48 said:You could look at it that way within the credit system. Every single dollar someone decides to hold onto basically creates a shortage of cash in circulation. But honestly, locking your money away in a bank account doesn't really change the math or make things any better.

Yes and no. As an economist, you get it—banks can issue multiple times more in loans based on just your single deposit. From a development standpoint, that’s great, but economically speaking, it creates this massive surge in the money supply that inevitably drives up inflation. It almost feels like you'd be better off not giving your savings to the bank at all. Of course, that only works if every single saver does the exact same thing. If they did, the bank wouldn't have the deposits necessary to hand out those huge loans, and any resulting crisis would be minor. We could actually address the issues much sooner. But instead, we just keep stacking up debt, while only a tiny fraction of people ever bother to write about actual solutions.

Besides that—and I’ve already touched on this in my previous posts—when you leave money sitting in a bank, they're basically using your deposit as leverage to pull even more cash into circulation. It’s how they play with both your account and theirs. Even when people try to save, it doesn't actually help the economy much because there isn't enough non-credit money flowing in to keep things moving. If there was a steady stream of non-credit money flowing in, we could actually put loans to work for real development. You could take those credits, use them to build things, and then just pay them back using that non-credit inflow. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.It’s all just one big scam, honestly. Once you hit a certain volume of debt, you simply can't pay it back anymore. The interest rates end up eclipsing the actual principal you started with. It's just how it works.

I think you might have skimmed over my previous posts. The whole system is basically a scam, and you can see it clearly just by looking at inflation. That whole "buy low, sell high" cycle—basically just middleman profiteering—is one of the main triggers for inflation. No actual new value is being added to the world, yet everyone is hunting for a profit. It’s only natural that the money supply has to inflate. On top of that, inflation is actually a practical way they've tried to manage things, like taking out massive new loans just to pay off the old ones. But honestly, it's hard to pull off long-term because when you're inflating the money supply to cover debt, you end up drowning in the sum of the interest plus the inflation itself. A Eureka for economists? The logical conclusion here is simple: any positive bank interest rate eventually leads to infinite debt, faster or slower, because of that inflationary borrowing. You're essentially increasing the money supply through credit just to stay afloat. I find myself wondering... should I really be the one breaking the ice and writing about stuff that people should have figured out a long time ago?

It’s honestly wild that an economist can look at a system with a finite amount of money and actually believe it’s a viable solution. Take the EU, for example. If they were to somehow double their population over the next 200 years—though who even knows what the world will look like then—how could you possibly think the current money supply would still be enough? You're basically assuming that in two centuries, absolutely nobody will manage to save a single cent or pull any capital out of circulation. It's a strange way to look at things. I suppose if we were dealing with a population shrinking by 3% every year, the math might make sense, but under these conditions? Not really.

Hey there.

I was looking through this site again today—sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home—and it really gets you thinking about how everything is interconnected. It’s one of those corners of the internet that just sits there, quietly making points about the way our financial systems actually function under the hood. Most people don't spend much time digging into the structural mechanics of money, they just accept the status quo, I guess. But if you look closely at the way capital flows, especially when you start applying some of those classic economic theories we all studied, things start to look a bit different. It's about the foundation. If the foundation is shaky, the whole house is eventually going to tilt. Just an observation.

Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.

crimsonfalcon10 said:Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.

Maybe it would have been more appropriate if Sisyphus had answered me instead of crimsonfalcon10. If anyone wants to be a masochist, that's their call. But honestly, anyone advocating for preserving this credit-based system is just being a masochist.

I feel like I've shown countless times that the current system has a deliberate flaw designed to prevent actual prosperity. I lay it out using logic, math, and undeniable examples, and the response I get is always something like: "That doesn't apply to us. We want to work until we're 95. We want our past labor to turn into nothing so we're forced to keep working." That’s just how a 20-year-old thinks. By the time you hit 60, you'll be completely burnt out from the factories, the shifts, the bosses, the meager paychecks, and you'll be counting down the days until retirement—even if it's for pennies—just so you don't have to look at the same faces at work every single day. And now you're telling me it's fine for my savings to just evaporate on its own right when I need them most, at a time when I won't be able to pick up extra side gigs after hours. That is pure, unadulterated masochism.

The government moved to push the women's retirement age up to 65 today. What happens in twenty years? Maybe we'll be working until 75? They try to "fix" flaws in the Constitution by just extending the working life. What's the limit here—working until death or becoming disabled? If they keep applying this logic, I'm certain we'll see a massive spike in disability claims. You could also expect an increase in suicides among older, capable people because some might prefer that over being left disabled by some "accidental" mishap.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it's the main point. Working forever isn't the answer. We should be using our brains to find a better way. Labor alone won't pull us out of a crisis (look at Japan for example). We need to expose this scam as soon as possible, rather than defending it as the only viable solution. I assume you all want a better future for your kids. By supporting this system, you're ensuring they won't have one (unless you happen to be a banker).

Regards