The Financial System and Money Supply

I don't know. It’s just one of those things where you look at the data and the reality doesn't quite line up with what people say on the news. You see these trends moving in one direction, but then you talk to someone on the street in Chicago or even out in Phoenix, and the vibe is completely different. It’s strange. I think we tend to overcomplicate these systemic shifts. People want a grand theory, a single reason why everything feels a bit off lately, but sometimes it’s just a series of small, disconnected events that happen to cluster together. It’s not always a conspiracy or a massive planned shift. Sometimes it’s just messy. That’s my take anyway. Just an observation. says:
Maria Thomas48

Take a look at this table...

I was looking through this data from the Federal Reserve regarding the historical H.6 release. It’s pretty dense stuff. Just raw numbers on the components of the monetary base. You look at these trends over the long haul and it really changes how you view liquidity in the American economy. Most people just glance at the headlines, but if you actually sit down with the historical files, you see the shifts in how money moves through the system. It's all there in the spreadsheets. Very straightforward once you get past the formatting. Makes you think about the sheer scale of the adjustments they've had to make over the decades to keep things steady. It's interesting. Truly.

The way M1 money supply has climbed over the years... if you look at it through Matthew Patel12’s logic, you have to take the current M1 and add it to the number of years the system has been running, multiplied by that initial M1. It’s a specific way of looking at it. And now we’re hitting a wall because M1 is already ten times smaller than the GDP. It’s a bit of a mess. Just imagine what happens when we actually hit the point where M1 is ten times larger than the GDP based on his principle. That would be something else entirely.

All I could really wrap my head around was that M1 money supply has been climbing by about 3.68% annually over the last 19 years. It’s an interesting trend. If we actually knew what the average annual inflation rate was, we could finally see how much the real value of that M1 supply is actually growing. Or shrinking. It's hard to say without both numbers side by side.

I’ve said this before, but banks are basically just using secondary offerings to multiply deposits. They take those deposits and then use the cash flow to demand massive returns. It also helps juice up the GDP numbers on paper, but it doesn't actually do anything to help people pay off the debt from those loans. It's all circular.

I’ve already said this before: I don't do economic analysis. You need actual, boots-on-the-ground knowledge about how specific economies actually function to pull that off. That’s just not my thing. An analysis by itself isn't enough to provide a solution; it really just points out the problems that follow.

Even if I sat down and put together a massive, deep-dive analysis with a perfectly accurate solution, it wouldn't matter an ounce. It’s all for nothing when there isn't any public awareness about the mess we're actually in. People don't realize that the only real way out is through changing how money regulation works. Tesla had this vision for a superior technological fix—which, honestly, might actually be safe today given how much people worry about things like electromagnetic wave exposure—but it just didn't matter because nobody saw the need for it. There was no collective consciousness. No one was looking for it.

Alright. I’ve put together a completely accurate analysis of how the credit system alone impacts the economy and where exactly the breakdown is happening. It probably won't spark some massive revolution in thinking, though. In my view, I’ve done more than enough to get things moving in the right direction. I’ve said this before, but once we prove the current system is broken, the actual planning for changes needs to be handed over to economists—real intellectuals and patriots who actually have the technical expertise to handle it.

Why should I be expected to have all the answers? Even Leonardo da Vinci didn't have them, yet he still went ahead and imagined the possibility of building an aircraft. It's all the same.

If you want a rough estimate for how much non-credit capital we might need, you could look at it this way. Take the average salary and multiply it by twelve months, then multiply that by the total number of workers. From there, factor in the ratio of total GDP to final consumption. If you run those numbers, you end up looking at roughly $650 billion. That’s about... $1072 Non-credit money per worker annually. If you calculated that based on every single resident, we’re looking at about $12.8 billion. With that much savings per worker, it's pretty obvious people don't have the means to go out and buy cars. I mean, if every third person actually bought a vehicle, their future expenses would skyrocket, leaving them with zero savings for the essentials—housing, furniture, putting kids through college, and all that. In this kind of scenario, it would help if all pensions were financed using non-credit money—assuming, of course, that money is earned through actual merit and not just through who you know—but even then, it doesn't feel like enough. We definitely need to overhaul how banks make their money from interest. Especially when you realize that credit isn't even a fraction of what someone actually earns, and issuing it is essentially a form of forgery. A loan is only backed by a tiny sliver of real value, yet banks demand massive returns. I think I explained the math before—it's roughly 42% annual return on the initial capital if the interest rate is 7%. Just think about those auto loans where the total profit over seven years ends up being more than 50% of the car's price. If the initial cash used is only 1/6th of the total loan, the bank is basically multiplying its money 3.125 times over seven years on just 16% of the principal. Who wouldn't want a business where you triple your cash in seven years? It’s like having a savings account with a 17.6% interest rate. And that’s just a rough estimate. So, who can actually pay this back? What kind of legitimate business produces those kinds of returns by actually increasing the money supply? It's no wonder they're sitting on billions in profits that are impossible to ever pay back.

Hey there

Maria Thomas48, my initial proposition was quite simple: we should utilize non-credit money to fund pensions and child allowances. This approach has nothing to do with the labor force, it doesn't disincentivize work, and it carries no actual cost. When prices stabilize and profits rise, production and employment naturally follow suit. In the US, Congressman Dennis Kucinich has proposed funding infrastructure, education, healthcare, and pensions through similar means. Now, those pension models have been replaced by a citizen's dividend—formerly known as a national dividend—which is distributed to all residents of the USA. It is patently obvious that Kucinich is an American at heart. You can find more details on this at http://monetary.org

crimsonfalcon10 said:You don't even grasp what you're talking about... you can only withdraw money once it's already circulating... once it finds its way back to you... by the time that happens, inflation has already hit... you're just reacting too late to pull the cash out...

If corporate profits represent 5% of GDP, we are looking at $16.5 billion annually... since there are no credits in this system, every single employee has to save up to buy a house or an apartment... in the US, there are roughly 150 million workers and the average salary is $1667, making that $90 billion annually... if citizens used to use their paychecks for housing loans, now they'll have to save that exact amount instead... which means we're looking at an additional $30 billion in savings per year... and that doesn't even account for retirees... whose savings shouldn't be ignored either... which means $46.5 billion is being pulled out of circulation every year... essentially, you are injecting $46.5 billion into the system annually... if just 10 percent of those savings hits the market during Christmas in the first year, you'd trigger 10% inflation... by the second year, when savings reach $90 billion, 10% of that value would cause 20% inflation... after ten years, with savings totaling $450 billion and only needing $45 billion for circulation, if just 10% of that total flows into the economy, you're facing 100% inflation... not to mention how much crime would skyrocket in such a system... everyone knows people stash cash under the mattress... why work at all when you could just rob your neighbors?

🤣

We have to consider that most people used to finance housing through credit rather than saving. And credit goes straight into consumption (though cars are a bit different because they're imported, so part of that money leaks out to imports). Basically, we were spending things today that would have required savings to realize later (which is a questionable concept in a purely credit-based system). The difference is that by doing this now, you are effectively deploying resources from the future (future taxes, future wages for construction workers). But at the same time, it shows that production can happen in the present; it's just that the money needed to jumpstart it is missing . You could argue a general thesis that there's no sustainable economic growth without a reliable source of monetary profit. That matters when it comes to turning labor into savings
.
There are all sorts of economic theories about life cycles, and I won't try to lecture anyone on them. Generally, it's a productivity issue. Farmers and ranchers have to produce enough food for everyone. Everyone else has to produce goods for both the farmers and themselves. It's easy to figure out the maximum demand for certain goods based on how long they last. If production meets that demand, we have sufficient productivity. Then you look at engagement. Depending on productivity, we need a certain number of people. The question is whether we have enough people to meet current needs given existing productivity levels. If we do, then the only remaining factor is whether every worker sees enough incentive in their job to earn enough to cover the cost of living (per the Constitution) along with basic needs (housing, food, clothes, raising kids, school, transportation)
.
None of this works without sufficient productivity and quality. If a farmer only produces enough to feed two families, then at least half the population has to work in agriculture. If we produce 100 cars a year and they last 10 years, we only have 1,000 cars available. If cars lasted 100 years and we made a few more, maybe eventually we'd meet the demand for cars. Obviously, because of short-lived goods, we need higher wages (and needs are higher than they were 100 years ago), but it's clear that those wages just flow right back into the hands of the people mass-producing short-lived stuff (junk). So, the old saying holds true: I'm not rich enough to buy cheap (junk) goods
.
It's a bit off-topic, but to solve the housing problem, you need enough housing production, using as few people as possible, with houses that last a long time. The same applies to other long-term needs. Then you just replace things with new ones when they expire. You can't have everything be new construction and constant manufacturing. At that rate, you burn through too many resources. And there simply aren't enough people who can afford to buy new homes.

That’s why Matthew Patel12 hit the nail on the head when he pointed out how churning out cheap, low-quality junk just forces us to pump more and more new money into the system. If we keep moving at this exact pace, honestly, I don't see how humanity survives on this planet much longer.

It really feels like injecting non-credit money isn't nearly enough to fix things. But here's the catch—if that amount isn't sufficient, then the entire credit-based system is basically a dead end. There is no actual way to pay off those "debts" because, when you look at the math, the system doesn't generate profit; it just generates losses.

Best,

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, my initial proposition was quite simple: we should utilize non-credit money to fund pensions and child allowances. This approach has nothing to do with the labor force, it doesn't disincentivize work, and it carries no actual cost. When prices stabilize and profits rise, production and employment naturally follow suit. In the US, Congressman Dennis Kucinich has proposed funding infrastructure, education, healthcare, and pensions through similar means. Now, those pension models have been replaced by a citizen's dividend—formerly known as a national dividend—which is distributed to all residents of the USA. It is patently obvious that Kucinich is an American at heart. You can find more details on this at http://monetary.org

Funding infrastructure sounds fine, assuming there isn't some construction mafia running the show. Usually, these big projects are just expensive ways for certain people to get rich. I think you need massive oversight, or maybe just set up state-run firms to handle the planning and the actual building work.

Everything else seems pretty predictable. The only real issue is that medical technology keeps advancing and getting more expensive by the second. If you're funding all of that with non-credit money, you're injecting a huge amount of new cash into the system, and that might kick off inflation.

Besides, Americans face a major hurdle when it comes to implementing non-credit money because so much is spent on the military. That means there's a huge segment of the population basically living off others without contributing directly. Plus, oil is traded in dollars, so trying to inject new dollars through non-credit methods is tough since the volume has to be so high. And don't even get me started on the space program and those star wars budgets.

Best,

FYI: Inflation vs. Deflation - The rise and fall of the Dollar: 1800-2009 (.JPG - high res - zoom in if you want)

Brian Nelson4, the formula I’ve laid out would have maintained the dollar at a perfectly stable value for the last two centuries. We wouldn't be dealing with inflation or deflation; instead, the dollar would retain its real value indefinitely. What matters most is the necessary increase in the money supply (dM), defined by the money growth rate (k) and the total money supply (M).
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ;
When supply and demand reach equilibrium, k equals zero, meaning no new money is required. For k to remain positive, supply must exceed demand. Consider a scenario where k is 5%, or perhaps 12%, similar to the current trajectory in China. This surplus occurs because new goods have been produced or because demand has dipped, leaving inventory unsold. By applying this formula, all goods would be sold at unchanging prices. One needs only to master this single equation; nothing else is required. If k falls below zero, money must be withdrawn from circulation, though in the long run, the global money supply is perpetually expanding. An increasing money supply is a constant necessity. Should we ever find ourselves needing to withdraw money from the system, it will serve as a definitive sign that the world has begun its descent into ruin.

Matthew Patel12 said:Brian Nelson4, the formula I’ve laid out would have maintained the dollar at a perfectly stable value for the last two centuries. We wouldn't be dealing with inflation or deflation; instead, the dollar would retain its real value indefinitely. What matters most is the necessary increase in the money supply (dM), defined by the money growth rate (k) and the total money supply (M).
dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ;
When supply and demand reach equilibrium, k equals zero, meaning no new money is required. For k to remain positive, supply must exceed demand. Consider a scenario where k is 5%, or perhaps 12%, similar to the current trajectory in China. This surplus occurs because new goods have been produced or because demand has dipped, leaving inventory unsold. By applying this formula, all goods would be sold at unchanging prices. One needs only to master this single equation; nothing else is required. If k falls below zero, money must be withdrawn from circulation, though in the long run, the global money supply is perpetually expanding. An increasing money supply is a constant necessity. Should we ever find ourselves needing to withdraw money from the system, it will serve as a definitive sign that the world has begun its descent into ruin.

Will you finally plug some actual numbers into your system? Under your model, even with moderate GDP growth, the risk of inflation would skyrocket exponentially... which has been mathematically proven. Every single instance of money printing in the world has caused inflation... and now you want to implement hyper-printing of cash and think it won't trigger inflation? 😉

crimsonfalcon10, I have already stated that k equals 5% and k equals 18%; those are the actual figures. I don't live in America, nor do I rely on your specific press outlets, but I assume your domestic demand has plummeted by 25% or 30%. This implies you require an additional 25% to 30% in non-credit money. A crisis occurs when a government or the Federal Reserve pulls 20% of the money supply out of circulation for no discernible reason. I know this to be true in America because it is the standard behavior for any nation operating on credit-based currency. First, the USA pulled 18% of its money supply out of circulation, followed closely by the European Union. When their central banks faced liquidity shortages, they began draining capital from the periphery—places like smaller nations—which causes their exchange rates against the dollar to collapse and worsens the overall situation. It is why we say that when the USA sneezes, Europe catches a cold, and we end up with pneumonia. In 1929, the USA pulled 30% of the money supply out of circulation, which is precisely what triggered the global crisis. Now, money is being pumped back into the system to prevent another collapse, yet they are injecting far more credit money than the necessary non-credit money. This entire crisis was born from the explosion of mortgage debt. Had those loans simply been written off, there would be no crisis at all. China is currently writing off 45% of its loans, which is why their prices remain 45% lower than the rest of the world. The USA cannot handle the competition from China, but if the USA were to write off 90% of its debt, its prices would actually drop below those of the Chinese. These are the realistic figures I am presenting. As long as you remain preoccupied with mere credits, you will never grasp a single real number. Your figures are purely nominal, which is just another way of saying they are false.

Matthew Patel12 said:crimsonfalcon10, I have already stated that k equals 5% and k equals 18%; those are the actual figures. I don't live in America, nor do I rely on your specific press outlets, but I assume your domestic demand has plummeted by 25% or 30%. This implies you require an additional 25% to 30% in non-credit money. A crisis occurs when a government or the Federal Reserve pulls 20% of the money supply out of circulation for no discernible reason. I know this to be true in America because it is the standard behavior for any nation operating on credit-based currency. First, the USA pulled 18% of its money supply out of circulation, followed closely by the European Union. When their central banks faced liquidity shortages, they began draining capital from the periphery—places like smaller nations—which causes their exchange rates against the dollar to collapse and worsens the overall situation. It is why we say that when the USA sneezes, Europe catches a cold, and we end up with pneumonia. In 1929, the USA pulled 30% of the money supply out of circulation, which is precisely what triggered the global crisis. Now, money is being pumped back into the system to prevent another collapse, yet they are injecting far more credit money than the necessary non-credit money. This entire crisis was born from the explosion of mortgage debt. Had those loans simply been written off, there would be no crisis at all. China is currently writing off 45% of its loans, which is why their prices remain 45% lower than the rest of the world. The USA cannot handle the competition from China, but if the USA were to write off 90% of its debt, its prices would actually drop below those of the Chinese. These are the realistic figures I am presenting. As long as you remain preoccupied with mere credits, you will never grasp a single real number. Your figures are purely nominal, which is just another way of saying they are false.

When the USA pulled 18%... the issue here is that most of our consumption is imported... withdrawing money from circulation was done to protect the exchange rate... if the rate collapsed... there would be a massive revolt from people holding foreign currency loans... if they printed money, the exchange rate would sink even further... the Federal Reserve's job is to maintain price stability...

John Doe, the US pulled its liquidity from the market, effectively engineering this crisis. It’s a mess that has left all of Europe and anyone blindly following the IMF's playbook scrambling to catch up. Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, and Argentina remain remarkably insulated from this particular fallout. We have a duty to advocate for non-credit money until the system finally shifts. If we continue to push credit-based money, we are merely acting as agents for a global establishment that is clearly nearing its expiration date. You, however, continue to promote credit money. The logical progression requires non-credit money first—the actual creation of wealth—followed by the subsequent stages of saving and lending the capital that has entered circulation as a gift to the economy. I am holding out hope that this transition occurs within the next two years. This proposal hasn't just appeared overnight; it has been on the table for over a year now. It will persist, it will spread, and eventually, it will be embraced.

Maria Thomas48 said:If what makes you happy is expanding equations to an open system—basically using the equality of three deficits. To be more precise, when a state balances imports with exports (total trade equals zero), it acts as a virtually money-isolated system.
If there’s a trade deficit with foreign nations, things get even worse regarding the monetary profit within the community.

Sum of monetary profits = budget deficit - trade deficit = - financing deficit

or the full equality of three deficits:

trade deficit = financing deficit + budget deficit

All of this is explained in the translated book Krueger "Macroeconomics" on page 39. You can download the PDF version from the University of California economics department website. It uses the symbols economists typically use, but the essence remains the same.

Well, you can clearly see the state's monetary balance in an open system. Without a positive monetary balance, the state loses money, the economy works at a loss in total, and everything heads 100% toward a crisis. Every economist knows this, but they don't realize that by balancing the trade account (exports=imports), a reduction occurs which shows that:

Sum of monetary profits = budget deficit = - financing deficit

Which implies the following. The money savings realized by entities (companies and individuals) are then actually financed by the government budget deficit. If the state took out credit for the deficit, then it means it has to pay back more than it borrowed. Or rather, it needs to pay back more than the economy actually generated in monetary profit.

Our economists fail to see that almost direct link between monetary profit and the budget deficit. In reality, it differs because of the trade balance. That's why I try to find a solution for all countries at once and I balance the trade accounts (through swapping). That way, no single country pays off the debts of others.

Is it clearer now?

It's even easier to prove that a money-isolated community suffers a monetary loss in circulation because one part of the entities keeps accumulating monetary profit, which is explained by the slowing down of circulation. This happens because the monetary profit accumulates and is then invested.

How will you solve the monetary loss in circulation? By speeding up the circulation of the remaining money. Genius. You're close to a Nobel Prize (big money is smiling at you). Just explain it to Šuker and we'll be set. You haven't managed to convince me how the household budget would function then, or where that acceleration comes from. I know practically how it could be done, but I'd like to hear from you how to make all payments at the same time with less money in the system.

Mr. Matthew Patel12, thanks for explaining the slowing of money circulation. I have nothing to add.

Regards
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

I've been following this thread, but I'll be honest—I'm pretty lost on what you guys are trying to get at. This whole debate about the velocity of money and the underlying model is just confusing me. And regarding regulating that speed—as far as I understand, if you want to speed up circulation, you'd lower the reserve requirements, which reduces the amount of immobilized cash. On the flip side, shrinking the money supply usually doesn't speed up the cycle; it typically just leads to liquidity issues.

Matthew Patel12 said:John Doe, the US pulled its liquidity from the market, effectively engineering this crisis. It’s a mess that has left all of Europe and anyone blindly following the IMF's playbook scrambling to catch up. Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, and Argentina remain remarkably insulated from this particular fallout. We have a duty to advocate for non-credit money until the system finally shifts. If we continue to push credit-based money, we are merely acting as agents for a global establishment that is clearly nearing its expiration date. You, however, continue to promote credit money. The logical progression requires non-credit money first—the actual creation of wealth—followed by the subsequent stages of saving and lending the capital that has entered circulation as a gift to the economy. I am holding out hope that this transition occurs within the next two years. This proposal hasn't just appeared overnight; it has been on the table for over a year now. It will persist, it will spread, and eventually, it will be embraced.

Here is that link one more time...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...st/h6hist1.txt

Where is this withdrawal of cash...?

And here is a formula for you...

M x V = GDP

M = money supply (M1)

V = velocity of money (V = f(x,y,z, consumer psychology, interest rates, etc.))

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/374...ityofmoney.jpg

crimsonfalcon10, let's look at the math: MV = GDP; V = GDP/M; GDP = PQ; M = GDP/V;
M = PQ/V; therefore, dM = (PdQ - MdV)/(V + dV);
In this framework, dM represents the additional money supply as a dependent variable, determined by the independent variables dQ (an increase in production volume) and dV (the change in velocity). I have no interest in consumer psychology, nor am I concerned with interest rates. My focus remains strictly on how much production has increased (dQ) and how the velocity of money has shifted (dV). If the velocity of money decreases, it signifies a drop in demand; consequently, more money is required to facilitate the purchase of goods that failed to sell due to that slowing velocity. The real money supply is simply the reciprocal of the velocity. Thus, real money increases if the velocity slows down. If production rises, velocity must decelerate. The necessity for new money is dictated by this equation: dM = (PdQ - MdV)/(V+dV); dM is the exact amount of capital required.
PdQ accounts for increased production while maintaining a constant price level (P).
-MdV represents the volume of unsold goods resulting from the deceleration of velocity.
V + dV represents the adjusted velocity of money (which is -dV).
When considering non-credit money as a gift, one must account for the extra liquidity needed to cover both the surge in production and the inventory stuck in limbo because of the slowing velocity. That is the fundamental reality; everything else is merely unnecessary complication.

@Matthew Patel12

I couldn't care less about consumer psychology

Psychology is everything here... the whole drive to sell, produce, and buy... that's what actually dictates the economy.

Quincy:

Psychology is the fundamental driver. Human desires regarding sales, manufacturing, and consumption... these are what truly dictate value.

I would say the exact same thing. In fact, it is more than that; it is the sole factor that remains constantly shifting and unpredictable. No mathematical formula can ever truly "forecast" it.

Gregory Williams7 and lonehawk5, the bourgeois school of thought stands in direct opposition to Marxist theory, at least according to their own logic. Marxist theory begins with labor, which I view as an objective cost. In contrast to this objective cost, we must identify what constitutes objective utility. Objective utility is measured by the velocity of money circulation. When utility is higher, the velocity of money decreases, subsequently lowering demand. While supply is dictated by labor and other costs, demand is determined by the velocity of money as an objective metric. Bourgeois theorists have insisted that subjective utility is the most vital element in economics—that consumer psychology you both seem to favor. In my estimation, subjective utility dictates consumer behavior, whereas objective utility determines one's actual fate. A man might enjoy drinking or using drugs, and that represents his consumer psychology. That is his subjective utility, but his objective utility will decide his ultimate end. Objectively speaking, he will die.

We are discussing mass psychology here, not the psychology of an addict.
It is that exact same mass psychology that turned 4 million American debtors into savers the moment news anchors started screaming "crisis!" on every major network.
I know what I am talking about because I have watched how forum threads about securing loans slowly morph into discussions on how to save money safely.
There is no mathematical formula you can invent to predict such a shift.

And those are precisely the kinds of shifts that would cause your system to collapse—when the masses begin spending their "savings" in an uncontrolled frenzy.

Money is not a tool for hoarding; it is a medium for exchanging goods and services. It should exist only in sufficient quantities to ensure that exchange flows smoothly.
If someone is foolish enough to hoard cash, let the system punish them. Let it be punished by the very same system that some people advocate for and others spit upon. 🙂

The current system is absolutely headed for disaster, and honestly, that goes for the architects who actually thought they could pull off this level of control. But let’s be real: any other system we tried to implement would eventually fall apart too. Human nature—driven by greed, power trips, and the urge to dominate others—is just too flawed for perfection. If anyone were going to find the loopholes and tear a system down, it would probably be us Americans...
😉

So, maybe what we're seeing right now is just a fair consequence for all of humanity. We keep chasing a seat at the table of the ultra-wealthy instead of building a society where everyone actually gets a fair shot.

Ashley Barnes9, a non-credit monetary system fundamentally discourages malice and nudges people toward virtue. Once a programmable, non-credit currency is implemented here in the States, you will witness the reality of this shift firsthand. Consumer psychology won't be able to fight against it. Production will expand while the velocity of money slows down, and that is simply how it will always function. Consequently, people will become increasingly content and, ultimately, better versions of themselves.

Matthew Patel12 said:Ashley Barnes9, a non-credit monetary system fundamentally discourages malice and nudges people toward virtue. Once a programmable, non-credit currency is implemented here in the States, you will witness the reality of this shift firsthand. Consumer psychology won't be able to fight against it. Production will expand while the velocity of money slows down, and that is simply how it will always function. Consequently, people will become increasingly content and, ultimately, better versions of themselves.

Ha! In that little utopia of yours, you'd need a banknote with twelve zeros just to buy a loaf of bread... 🤣 I don't think you could even fit that many digits on a bill... if you wanted to buy a car, you'd practically need a flatbed truck just to transport the payment... 😂 Well, at least you'd be safe from thieves... if someone tried to rob you, they'd need a fleet of tow trucks to haul away all that cash... you couldn't exactly run off with it easily...