The Financial System and Money Supply

Robert Vaughn10 said:Robert Vaughn10, it’s obvious this system is backwards. Claiming that not everyone can turn a profit is simply false. How did my ancestors, who answered to no one, generate wealth? They earned an income and spent less than they made. Who is stopping people from living that way today? It becomes complicated once governments step in, spending money that isn't actually theirs. Then there is the banking factor—interest rates, which, as you rightly pointed out, allow them to profit by issuing non-existent money, collecting interest, and frequently gambling on speculation rather than actual production. Trying to fix all of this using your proposed long-term method isn't the answer. The solution isn't just printing more paper; that should be obvious. Progress will only happen when we prioritize labor and production over mere paperwork. That isn't happening now, which is why the whole system is heading toward self-destruction.
Nothing worth having comes easy, which is why I am proposing precious metals to accurately measure created value. Paper is a joke because it’s easily manipulated in any scenario, including yours. You need to account for that variable. While the math might hold up, the social component doesn't. Expecting people to ignore greed and forgo profit at the expense of others is, in my view, unrealistic. We need to eliminate that possibility, and precious metals are the only way to do it.

I agree that not everyone can pull a monetary profit. The issue is that a lack of cash prevents those who actually could from doing so. You have business owners going bankrupt because of bad management or poor investments, regardless of anything else.

People always say: "I would be making money if I just had work." But you can only get work if someone else has the money to pay you for it. When there's a total liquidity crunch, everything falls apart. And we definitely know why. The profiteers just keep accumulating all that cash profit.

It’s especially clear when you look at banks. For them, money is just a tool for operation. The richer a bank gets, the bigger the deficit for everyone else, which means they need more cash. So, it’s pretty obvious that bankers don't want people having a free source of money; they want people to get it through them via loans, essentially staying in a cycle of endless debt.

Going back to the gold standard is pure science fiction. The demand for new money keeps growing because we make lower-quality, disposable goods now. The cost of mining gold is massive and would just add unnecessary expense. Gold and other precious metals are commodities, and they should stay that way. You shouldn't bring them into the main flow of trade. Doing that could trigger deflation and recession. History shows us this happened in the US after the gold rushes ended. And how do you climb out of a recession like that? Only with a sufficient influx of gold, maybe?!

I've already pointed out that the way this system treats increasing the money supply is as credit, which leads to infinite debt. I've shown that the community has a path toward lasting monetary profit by leveraging the budget deficit, provided that deficit isn't credited—because credit isn't easily paid back (except through exports or endless foreign investment).

We have two very strong reasons to scrap the credit-only system and introduce non-credit money. I'm not talking about printing money whenever the government feels like it, but rather using a scientific method of calculation.

Sure, we might run into issues maintaining the exchange rate, but it all comes down to unity and understanding the flow of money. The public needs to learn to buy domestic products and stop traveling abroad for summer vacations or skiing trips. Buying unnecessary foreign goods repeatedly hits our exchange rate stability. We need energy and food independence to be our top priority. We also need to fix the waste in the budget (both in agencies and director salaries). We need to overhaul public bidding processes to prevent those unrealistically high prices being tacked on, because that devalues the dollar and leads to inflation and economic crises—basically an undeserved transfer of wealth to a small minority. Stuff like that.

Let's not kid ourselves. All these problems need to be solved right now, not just waiting for some influx of non-credit money.

The tragedy is that economists and politicians won't tell us this. You can see the influence of nearly a century of control over education and politics here.

Simply swapping out the ruling party doesn't lead anywhere. The public has to realize that politicians, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, are leading us toward ruin. Without that realization, nothing changes. Until the people start demanding the end of this credit-only system, there is no way out.

Regards

Maria Thomas48 said:I agree that not everyone can pull a monetary profit. The issue is that a lack of cash prevents those who actually could from doing so. You have business owners going bankrupt because of bad management or poor investments, regardless of anything else.

People always say: "I would be making money if I just had work." But you can only get work if someone else has the money to pay you for it. When there's a total liquidity crunch, everything falls apart. And we definitely know why. The profiteers just keep accumulating all that cash profit.

It’s especially clear when you look at banks. For them, money is just a tool for operation. The richer a bank gets, the bigger the deficit for everyone else, which means they need more cash. So, it’s pretty obvious that bankers don't want people having a free source of money; they want people to get it through them via loans, essentially staying in a cycle of endless debt.

Going back to the gold standard is pure science fiction. The demand for new money keeps growing because we make lower-quality, disposable goods now. The cost of mining gold is massive and would just add unnecessary expense. Gold and other precious metals are commodities, and they should stay that way. You shouldn't bring them into the main flow of trade. Doing that could trigger deflation and recession. History shows us this happened in the US after the gold rushes ended. And how do you climb out of a recession like that? Only with a sufficient influx of gold, maybe?!

I've already pointed out that the way this system treats increasing the money supply is as credit, which leads to infinite debt. I've shown that the community has a path toward lasting monetary profit by leveraging the budget deficit, provided that deficit isn't credited—because credit isn't easily paid back (except through exports or endless foreign investment).

We have two very strong reasons to scrap the credit-only system and introduce non-credit money. I'm not talking about printing money whenever the government feels like it, but rather using a scientific method of calculation.

Sure, we might run into issues maintaining the exchange rate, but it all comes down to unity and understanding the flow of money. The public needs to learn to buy domestic products and stop traveling abroad for summer vacations or skiing trips. Buying unnecessary foreign goods repeatedly hits our exchange rate stability. We need energy and food independence to be our top priority. We also need to fix the waste in the budget (both in agencies and director salaries). We need to overhaul public bidding processes to prevent those unrealistically high prices being tacked on, because that devalues the dollar and leads to inflation and economic crises—basically an undeserved transfer of wealth to a small minority. Stuff like that.

Let's not kid ourselves. All these problems need to be solved right now, not just waiting for some influx of non-credit money.

The tragedy is that economists and politicians won't tell us this. You can see the influence of nearly a century of control over education and politics here.

Simply swapping out the ruling party doesn't lead anywhere. The public has to realize that politicians, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, are leading us toward ruin. Without that realization, nothing changes. Until the people start demanding the end of this credit-only system, there is no way out.

Regards

So, despite knowing how humans work, people actually believe that introducing a scientific method for printing new money will somehow change the behavior of those same flawed individuals. Do you realize, that a scientific method is still subject to change by the same people in charge now??

I'm not even going to touch the gold comments, though I disagree with your arguments entirely.

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Mizuzul, tying our economy back to precious metals is nothing more than a regressive step backward. Who actually holds those reserves? The formula I provided is all that is required. Required money = dM.
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ; k = 5%, for instance.
The total volume of money is dictated by the interplay between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. Supply must exceed demand; if they sit at parity, then k equals zero, and no additional capital is necessary. One could even revert to a barter system. However, when supply outstrips demand, you derive k, and you act accordingly based on that value.
That is the entirety of it. Anything else is merely an unnecessary complication that ultimately reduces to this same principle.

It isn't that simple. You have to account for the social component, not just the math where you and Nostradamus reached your logical conclusion. This system suits the elites because it allows them to transfer wealth through market manipulation, currency fluctuations, interest rates, and so on. It doesn't matter if the elite holds the gold; once a fair standard is established, the majority will devour the manipulators—even if we're paying in micrograms. In that scenario, the majority holds the advantage. As long as paper fiat rules, manipulation and market distortion remain possible. That inevitably leads to impoverishment. The problem isn't a lack of paper; there's too much of it, and paper itself causes the distortion. Paper is inherently an unfair measure because the owner of the printing press, or a group of brokers and banks, can cheat the market using computers or other means. Introducing a new type of paper won't change the fact that the same people are in control; it just gives them more ammunition for further manipulation. Current reality proves me right.

Mr. mizuzul, you are overcomplicating a situation that is actually quite straightforward. If you set your parameters such that k equals 5%, you are essentially injecting 5% liquidity into the system. If your calculation hits the mark, inflation remains nonexistent; if it misses, prices see a marginal uptick. You simply halt the issuance. If there is a shortage of capital, you inject more. The margin of error is negligible and easily corrected. When you pull money out of circulation, treat it as a budget surplus; when you put it back in, treat it as a stimulus. Your sole objective is to maintain zero inflation, nothing more. You withdraw funds like a tax and inject them like a gift. The discrepancy is minimal and quickly trends toward zero. Nothing else matters—only price stability.

I stumbled upon this interesting debate and just had to weigh in on this particular claim:

"Why would exponential debt be an issue? Just look around... every law of nature involves exponential functions... why should economics be any different?"

Check out this lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
It uses some pretty clear-cut examples to explain how exponential functions impact modern society (it focuses more on resource depletion, but it’s a great way to wrap your head around how it affects our financial system, too).
The video is in English.

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. mizuzul, you are overcomplicating a situation that is actually quite straightforward. If you set your parameters such that k equals 5%, you are essentially injecting 5% liquidity into the system. If your calculation hits the mark, inflation remains nonexistent; if it misses, prices see a marginal uptick. You simply halt the issuance. If there is a shortage of capital, you inject more. The margin of error is negligible and easily corrected. When you pull money out of circulation, treat it as a budget surplus; when you put it back in, treat it as a stimulus. Your sole objective is to maintain zero inflation, nothing more. You withdraw funds like a tax and inject them like a gift. The discrepancy is minimal and quickly trends toward zero. Nothing else matters—only price stability.

On the contrary, things are complicated now, whereas they would be simple with gold. I don't know why you place such trust in politicians when corruption is a given. We all start life with principles, but over time, people forget those truths and chase profit, often at someone else's expense. Don't tell me you don't see that. This is how decadence sets in. With precious metals minted by the Federal Reserve, errors wouldn't exist. For example, copper by weight for small denominations up to $0.05 or $0.10, silver by weight for amounts up to $33, and gold by weight for values from 100 to $3333. Or some similar ratio. It would even allow our forests to recover. Given the limited supply of metals—and if we were careful with the copper—it's unlikely the Fed would ever think about flooding the market with coins... though the minting idea deserves further thought...
It would also force lenders to think twice before issuing credit. Prices wouldn't just be stable; they would drop. Initially, one would have to work harder to achieve a higher standard of living, which is exactly what we need to avoid decadence, but later, purchasing power would be immense. A real economy would trigger an alarm much faster if spending exceeded income. Those are massive advantages compared to the current situation, where crises are merely delayed through money printing.
Not to mention that most people would circulate precious metals, and the economy would actually function. Currently, it's far too easy to bribe and defraud people on a massive scale.

Mr. Mizuzul, the situation is being complicated by people—some out of sheer ignorance and others because they benefit from the chaos. The piece you quoted says everything that needs to be said; read it repeatedly until the logic takes hold. Human corruption is powerless against these mechanics. If Wall Street bankers pull liquidity from the system, just as they did to trigger the current crisis and every one before it, you simply inject enough capital to offset that withdrawal; the contraction becomes meaningless when you are effectively gifting the funds necessary to compensate for their hoarding. Conversely, if those same bankers begin flooding the market with cash to spark inflation, you reclaim that money through non-circulating taxes to build a budget surplus, rendering their maneuvers equally futile. When you hold sovereign power over the currency, private bankers lose their leverage entirely. Of course, this isn't arbitrary; you operate according to a strict formula that dictates the precise amount of money required in circulation. Before long, the speculators will tire of their games. They will settle into the predictable rhythm of collecting deposits and issuing loans from those reserves, avoiding the very crises they once manufactured. There isn't enough gold or precious metal to go around, particularly for developing nations, yet the formula I have presented is universal and available to anyone willing to use it.

Fine, since you are all being so persistent, tell me this: how would you actually calculate inflation? We all know that measuring inflation is practically a science unto itself, which leaves far too much room for manipulation. What universal method would you use to determine the true rate of inflation? And more importantly, should there even be more money injected into the system?

And by the way, the framework you just described is exactly how our current system operates. You simply choose to ignore the stipends and subsidies handed out like gifts—money that enters the system without any interest attached. Not everyone receives the same amount, but it flows into the economy regardless.

Mr. Mark Rothko, why bother calculating inflation when it effectively sits at zero? I know this because prices simply don't move. Perhaps there were minor errors in the early days, meaning one might see fluctuations of maybe 1-2% up or down, but if anyone actually noticed such thing, they would.

Brian Nelson4 said:So, despite knowing how humans work, people actually believe that introducing a scientific method for printing new money will somehow change the behavior of those same flawed individuals. Do you realize, that a scientific method is still subject to change by the same people in charge now??

I'm not even going to touch the gold comments, though I disagree with your arguments entirely.

Where did I ever say that introducing non-credit money would change behavior? My point was that the public needs to be educated. People need to understand how and why money is produced and what actually gives money its value. Criminals have always existed, and they aren't going to stop just because we change the way non-credit money is calculated. They cause damage under the current system too, and nothing changes. If these methods are scientifically verified and everyone knows them, then politicians will finally be backed into a corner. It’s strange when you think about it—seventeen years ago, back when non-credit money was being discussed, there weren't any studies (meaning, I haven't heard of any, and neither have modern economists) regarding the calculation of issuance. I just know that Mr. Stolet had his master's thesis titled "gift card" rejected because the content was supposedly made up since there was no existing literature to reference. Basically, you can't write the first paper on a subject if there isn't already a first paper to serve as a reference. That happened back in the early 80s in the South.Also, I haven't noticed any difference in how macroeconomics is taught in America before or after 1994, but there should be a difference.. It’s not the same thing for a country's economy when credit is the source of money versus when it’s non-credit issuance.

Regarding gold. The mistake is in the logic itself. This isn't really trading anymore; it's more like bartering (which is why some people advocate for it). I give you goods, you give me gold (or other goods). The result is the same. Whether you want to buy with less gold or sell for more gold, you're doing the exact same thing with cash. In short, the community is basically asking for new gold to be brought in so they can save it. While printing paper money is cheap, producing gold costs money. If it were that easy to find, it wouldn't have any value.

How are you going to pay for the production of gold? With the paper money you threw away? Or maybe you'll just start a state-run mine and a mint? Where exactly? The US isn't exactly known for its gold mines.

Regards

sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Sandra Cox67 said:I stumbled upon this interesting debate and just had to weigh in on this particular claim:

"Why would exponential debt be an issue? Just look around... every law of nature involves exponential functions... why should economics be any different?"

Check out this lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
It uses some pretty clear-cut examples to explain how exponential functions impact modern society (it focuses more on resource depletion, but it’s a great way to wrap your head around how it affects our financial system, too).
The video is in English.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... after three parts, I just couldn't bring myself to listen anymore... 😉

Maria Thomas48, back in the days of the old USA, there was no such thing as non-credit money. There were brief discussions regarding the concept, but they were suppressed almost immediately. It was just a dialogue between myself and Dr. Srećko Ugrin. Dr. Ugrin once mentioned to me that he authored an English-language treatise on non-credit money and dispatched copies to thirty of the most influential institutions globally, yet every single book vanished in transit. While the postal service eventually compensated him for the lost property, such restitution is meaningless when the knowledge itself is gone. Those who rule the world through credit-based money possess an overwhelming level of power. The internet has shifted the landscape, providing us with endless exposure to the mechanics of this dominant credit system. My contention is that non-credit money fosters human virtue, whereas credit-based money breeds corruption. Because credit-based currency is inherently insufficient, people are driven into a desperate, futile struggle to acquire it. With non-credit money, there would be enough for everyone, effectively ending the bitter competition for survival.
Markos, I will provide a brief clarification on how one calculates inflation. If the nominal GDP increases by 10% while the real GDP grows by only 5%, then inflation stands at 5%; consequently, one must write off 5% of the debt to ensure nominal output aligns with real output, thereby neutralizing inflation. One would need to pull these figures from federal agencies, as I lack my own datasets or the means to compile them. I have heard reports that Chinese prices are roughly 45% lower than global averages. My assumption is that China has essentially written off 45% of its credit, turning their goods into a sort of gift to the world.
Miroslav23, an exponential curve can describe the growth of both credit-based and non-credit money; they are simply two distinct trajectories. The credit-money curve tracks a much more aggressive expansion, whereas the non-credit curve shows a more modest rate of growth. However, even a small amount of non-credit money yields a vastly superior utility compared to a massive influx of credit-based money.

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, back in the days of the old USA, there was no such thing as non-credit money. There were brief discussions regarding the concept, but they were suppressed almost immediately. It was just a dialogue between myself and Dr. Srećko Ugrin. Dr. Ugrin once mentioned to me that he authored an English-language treatise on non-credit money and dispatched copies to thirty of the most influential institutions globally, yet every single book vanished in transit. While the postal service eventually compensated him for the lost property, such restitution is meaningless when the knowledge itself is gone. Those who rule the world through credit-based money possess an overwhelming level of power. The internet has shifted the landscape, providing us with endless exposure to the mechanics of this dominant credit system. My contention is that non-credit money fosters human virtue, whereas credit-based money breeds corruption. Because credit-based currency is inherently insufficient, people are driven into a desperate, futile struggle to acquire it. With non-credit money, there would be enough for everyone, effectively ending the bitter competition for survival.
Markos, I will provide a brief clarification on how one calculates inflation. If the nominal GDP increases by 10% while the real GDP grows by only 5%, then inflation stands at 5%; consequently, one must write off 5% of the debt to ensure nominal output aligns with real output, thereby neutralizing inflation. One would need to pull these figures from federal agencies, as I lack my own datasets or the means to compile them. I have heard reports that Chinese prices are roughly 45% lower than global averages. My assumption is that China has essentially written off 45% of its credit, turning their goods into a sort of gift to the world.
Miroslav23, an exponential curve can describe the growth of both credit-based and non-credit money; they are simply two distinct trajectories. The credit-money curve tracks a much more aggressive expansion, whereas the non-credit curve shows a more modest rate of growth. However, even a small amount of non-credit money yields a vastly superior utility compared to a massive influx of credit-based money.

Well, Mr. Patel, they might not have officially called it that, but that’s basically how it functioned right up until they printed too much of it.

Best,

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Mizuzul, the situation is being complicated by people—some out of sheer ignorance and others because they benefit from the chaos. The piece you quoted says everything that needs to be said; read it repeatedly until the logic takes hold. Human corruption is powerless against these mechanics. If Wall Street bankers pull liquidity from the system, just as they did to trigger the current crisis and every one before it, you simply inject enough capital to offset that withdrawal; the contraction becomes meaningless when you are effectively gifting the funds necessary to compensate for their hoarding. Conversely, if those same bankers begin flooding the market with cash to spark inflation, you reclaim that money through non-circulating taxes to build a budget surplus, rendering their maneuvers equally futile. When you hold sovereign power over the currency, private bankers lose their leverage entirely. Of course, this isn't arbitrary; you operate according to a strict formula that dictates the precise amount of money required in circulation. Before long, the speculators will tire of their games. They will settle into the predictable rhythm of collecting deposits and issuing loans from those reserves, avoiding the very crises they once manufactured. There isn't enough gold or precious metal to go around, particularly for developing nations, yet the formula I have presented is universal and available to anyone willing to use it.

Mr. Matthew Patel12, please re-read my previous point if you actually want an informed debate. Must I draw you a map? My assertion remains: people as a whole are corrupt.
Who is this "you," and what government are we talking about? Surely you aren't suggesting that governments act solely in the public interest, or that bankers and politicians aren't deeply entwined through debt? If you truly believe what you're claiming, then I have nothing left to say...

Boris is taking a stand against the nirvana fallacy 😬

Robert Vaughn10 said:Mr. Matthew Patel12, please re-read my previous point if you actually want an informed debate. Must I draw you a map? My assertion remains: people as a whole are corrupt.
Who is this "you," and what government are we talking about? Surely you aren't suggesting that governments act solely in the public interest, or that bankers and politicians aren't deeply entwined through debt? If you truly believe what you're claiming, then I have nothing left to say...

And don't forget about the media. My whole push to get certain truths out there—because there's honestly no other way—has just shown how tightly politics, big banks, economists, and the news media are all tangled up together. And unions? That's a whole different mess.

That’s exactly why I started this thread. We’re just spinning our wheels while time slips away. Honestly, who cares about individual politicians? What matters is the truth behind the crisis. We need to spread that awareness among the public. There's no solution without general awareness. How can we act collectively if 99.99% of people haven't the slightest clue what's actually happening? It isn't enough to just say "politicians don't care." We have to use hard math to prove that the system itself is broken and that we have to force a change. But how do we do that if only ten people in the entire country understand it, while everyone else refuses to believe the obvious truth? We have to work on educating the masses. Just trading insults doesn't get us anywhere.

The three deficits explain everything. We know why money just vanishes into thin air. We know credit isn't a substitute for real value. We know a budget deficit shouldn't be funded by debt because it becomes impossible to pay back. We know that inflation within this specific system inherently leads to a crisis. We know we need a different source—non-credit-based money. Now, the issue is that we're dealing with corruption and all that other stuff. So, what now? For the next ten years, we’ll either spend our time debating or actually moving toward a solution. Mr. Stol has been debating for decades already.

We need to say: "Joining the EU right now isn't a smart move." And then list the exact reasons: "Because they operate under a credit-only constitution which is a scam and doesn't lead to prosperity. Every single EU member state is struggling under massive debt." We have the exact same system here in America, and it needs to change. Everyone needs to realize this instead of being sheep that the shepherds shear whenever they feel like it.

Regards

Andrew Booth29 said:Boris is taking a stand against the nirvana fallacy 😬

Hey g. Somied, would you be able to use math to prove that the three-deficit equality isn't actually correct? In his book, Dirk Krueger " Makroekonomik wrote out that equality between the three deficits, though he didn't really draw any specific conclusions from it. I wonder if he was just worried you might call him out for a Nirvana fallacy, or if this is some sort of indirect proof that there's a deliberate gap in economic science. Why specifically at that point?

Best,

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, back in the days of the old USA, there was no such thing as non-credit money. There were brief discussions regarding the concept, but they were suppressed almost immediately. It was just a dialogue between myself and Dr. Srećko Ugrin. Dr. Ugrin once mentioned to me that he authored an English-language treatise on non-credit money and dispatched copies to thirty of the most influential institutions globally, yet every single book vanished in transit. While the postal service eventually compensated him for the lost property, such restitution is meaningless when the knowledge itself is gone. Those who rule the world through credit-based money possess an overwhelming level of power. The internet has shifted the landscape, providing us with endless exposure to the mechanics of this dominant credit system. My contention is that non-credit money fosters human virtue, whereas credit-based money breeds corruption. Because credit-based currency is inherently insufficient, people are driven into a desperate, futile struggle to acquire it. With non-credit money, there would be enough for everyone, effectively ending the bitter competition for survival.
Markos, I will provide a brief clarification on how one calculates inflation. If the nominal GDP increases by 10% while the real GDP grows by only 5%, then inflation stands at 5%; consequently, one must write off 5% of the debt to ensure nominal output aligns with real output, thereby neutralizing inflation. One would need to pull these figures from federal agencies, as I lack my own datasets or the means to compile them. I have heard reports that Chinese prices are roughly 45% lower than global averages. My assumption is that China has essentially written off 45% of its credit, turning their goods into a sort of gift to the world.
Miroslav23, an exponential curve can describe the growth of both credit-based and non-credit money; they are simply two distinct trajectories. The credit-money curve tracks a much more aggressive expansion, whereas the non-credit curve shows a more modest rate of growth. However, even a small amount of non-credit money yields a vastly superior utility compared to a massive influx of credit-based money.

Why fight inflation so hard? Isn't inflation the only thing balancing the ratio between savings and debt? That makes it useful! It devalues savings, yes, but it also shrinks the weight of debt. Besides, even Ben is pumping non-credit money into the economy right now. Overnight loan rates are sitting between 0-0.25%, which is basically a handout. On top of that, he's buying up junk bonds that are currently worthless in exchange for dollars... to me, that acts like non-credit money... and despite what people say, that money isn't even truly circulating in the economy...

You talk about the struggle for credit money as if it wouldn't exist without non-credit money... but without that pressure, we wouldn't see any progress at all! Inflation and interest rates constantly push me to increase my income. That is exactly why I invest in my own knowledge. I don't waste my time thinking about how to cut costs; I focus exclusively on how to boost revenue. This is why I maintain that inflation is actually a good thing—it drives people to work harder and improve themselves. Without inflation, the imbalance between savings and debt would become unmanageable, and that instability would eventually break the whole system.

Regarding the velocity of money... perhaps in the long term (over a 10-year period), the velocity is declining, but in the short term, it moves in a sort of sine wave. There will always be moments where circulation speeds up or slows down.

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Mark Rothko, why bother calculating inflation when it effectively sits at zero? I know this because prices simply don't move. Perhaps there were minor errors in the early days, meaning one might see fluctuations of maybe 1-2% up or down, but if anyone actually noticed such thing, they would.

How can you expect prices for every single product to remain static? Food production technology has barely evolved over the last twenty years, yet electronics manufacturing changes daily, making those goods constantly cheaper.

As you can see, it is impossible to control all prices through money supply alone. Consequently, your theory falls apart.

No matter what kind of system you dream up, it’s gonna have its own set of flaws. The smartest move we can make is to just wrap our heads around how the current system actually works and figure out how to play it to our advantage.