wiredotter12 said:Maria Thomas48, first off... I respect the sheer amount of time and effort you put into deconstructing the mechanics of the financial system and the nature of money itself.
Your point about issuing currency backed by future production and services caught my attention. Since we are currently drowning in a massive mess here in America, and this could potentially be an escape route... can you elaborate? What does that look like specifically for the US?
The issue is that Beethoven might prefer adjusting interest rates instead, which would likely collapse the American financial system and trap us in permanent debt slavery, despite his earlier comments about the other option...
http://www.business.com/news/...will-happen
http://seebiz.com/macroeconomics/h...oru,97867.html
http://seebiz.com/macroeconomics/h...fi!,97858.html
Thanks. Regards.
I’ve talked about this quite a bit already. I try not to just copy and paste my old stuff, so it makes sense that some of these posts end up being pretty short.
Here is the simplest way to look at it. The fundamental flaw in the whole system is that money eventually ends up as someone’s profit, and that profit naturally tends to pile up. That isn't necessarily an issue on its own, provided there was some kind of mechanism in place to balance it out. But the current setup is just a mess—a total imitation of European Union models adopted back in the mid-90s because our experts didn't really know any better. It relies entirely on injecting money while simultaneously building up even larger debts. This works because fractional reserve banking allows money to be virtually multiplied—which is basically just fabrication—and the only thing stopping the entire system from collapsing is the Federal Reserve issuing more money, though even that is just more credit. Creating debt inevitably creates a need for inflation. Anyone actually studying economics knows that you have to trigger inflation just to pay off old debt with even bigger new loans.
So, the components of fraud are basically this:
Banks just create money out of thin air, and they're basically just cranking out more and more debt in the process. It's how it works.
The Federal Reserve basically just functions as a service provider for commercial banks. It’s all an illusion to make people think the government actually holds any kind of real monetary control. In reality, they don't have anything at all.
Element Solutions provides these:
Stop letting banks multiply the money in circulation.
The government needs to return that money to the people. It’s just common sense. All that cash being pumped out—it has to go back. Just a simple reversal.
We should be using active measures to keep those price hikes under control. It’s just common sense. If we don't step in, things are going to spiral.
We really need to talk about capping lending profits if we want this whole system to actually last. It’s pretty simple. If you let interest margins run wild without any oversight, the entire financial structure becomes unstable. You can't just chase short-term gains forever and expect the foundation to hold up. It's about long-term sustainability. We need limits in place to ensure the stability of the market. Otherwise, we're just building on sand.
Steps 1 and 2 are basically linked. They work together to get the economy moving, regardless of whatever mess we're starting from. Step 3 is more about keeping things steady—specifically stopping inflation from spiking and making sure wages don't just bleed out because someone ended up with an unreasonably high paycheck. Then there's Step 4. That one is all about long-term growth for both the economy and the banks.
Our economists just can't seem to wrap their heads around this one. It’s pretty simple math, really. If the government issues currency for everyone to use, then logically, they have to guarantee its long-term stability. They should also ensure it's distributed based on actual contribution and that any potential profits from lending are shared out fairly. To me, that's just basic fair play for everyone involved. It's common sense.
All those points in the reform are positive, really. But honestly, most people around here just have one thing on their minds: how to hike up prices and squeeze out every cent. They want to park their cash in a savings account and pull better returns than they’d ever get from starting a real business. It's all about that quick payout. To me, it feels like pure greed. There's just no long-term foundation there for anything to actually last.
A Donkey can carry 120 pounds. But if you try to push it too far, loading it down with everything you own just to move more at once, the animal dies. Business works the exact same way. Greed is what leads to a total collapse. I was walking through the local Farmer's Market today and saw ten different stalls all selling mandarins, and every single one of them had a price tag. $2.75What kind of supply and demand law is that if everyone is charging the exact same price? If this were actually a rule-of-law country, the inspectors would show up, see they're all fixing prices together, and strip them down to nothing just so nobody gets any bright ideas about price-fixing. It’s the same thing with any other product. It’s basically playing games with the consumer. And if they keep doing it, I’d say pull their business license for a month, then move to three, then six, then twelve, and eventually just ban them from the industry entirely. Laws should be used to build a culture of real competition, not a system designed to coordinate high prices.
And yeah, back to the whole money printing thing again. It’s actually pretty standard for the federal budget to run a deficit—it's how you build up cash reserves and generate profit in the long run. That deficit should basically be covered by direct injections from the Federal Reserve. We're talking somewhere between 3.6% and 5% of the total money supply. In US terms, that would be around 12 billion dollars, and if we weren't dealing with all this heavy importing, we could probably save a massive chunk of that. $1000 It’s per capita, annually. Of course, once you factor in corporate profits, the actual amount isn't that massive. It isn't really a huge sum of money. Half of those funds definitely need to go toward things like pensions, tuition, child benefits, and all that. Then the other half should be directed toward priority goals that provide the most benefit to the entire community in the shortest amount of time—things like infrastructure maintenance, roads, rail systems, and so on. That's where the big issues start popping up, though. You get stuck with problems involving rigged bidding processes, corruption, and services that don't actually exist.
The scale of money supply needs to be regulated. It has to stay within what the population can actually handle when it comes to ramping up production, jobs, and overall efficiency. If you pump more cash into the economy than the businesses can actually put to work, you just end up creating inflation. That's how it works.
It’s a completely different way of looking at business and making money than what we've seen before. Up until now, we’ve basically just worshipped companies that pull in massive profits, but now we really need to stop and think about what that actually does to society as a whole. If a corporation is raking in insane amounts of cash while contributing next to nothing—meaning they aren't putting in much actual labor or specialized knowledge—then that company is essentially just shifting costs onto everyone else. It devalues our currency and fuels inflation.
Quincy:
The only thing is, maybe Beethoven would be conducting the tempo right now. He could have practically dismantled the entire American financial system if he had, you know, played those same notes back then. It’s crazy to think about how easily he could have steered us straight into total debt slavery, especially considering what he was saying earlier about all this.
The economic outlook is shifting. People keep asking what’s actually going to happen next with the markets and the Fed, and honestly, there isn't one simple answer. Everything feels like it's in flux right now. You look at the data coming out of the Federal Reserve and you see these patterns, but then the reality on the ground feels different. It’s hard to pin down. There’s this constant tension between inflation concerns and the fear of a slowdown. Some analysts are convinced we're heading toward a major correction, while others think we're just seeing a standard cycle. I tend to sit somewhere in the middle. It’s not about picking a side; it’s about watching how the pieces move. I was reading some theories earlier—kind of similar to what Maria Thomas48 was mentioning in that other thread—about how interest rates will dictate the next few months. If the Fed holds steady, the markets might react one way, but if they pivot, everything changes. It’s all very interconnected. Even things that seem unrelated, like supply chain shifts or consumer spending habits in places like Chicago or New York, end up feeding back into the larger macro picture. It’s easy to get caught up in the panic or the hype. I try not to. I just watch the numbers. They don't lie, even if they don't tell the whole story either. We’ll see how it plays out. It's just one of those periods where everyone is waiting for the next big signal.
The economy is shifting again. It’s hard to keep up with all the moving parts lately. You look at the latest data coming out of the Federal Reserve and you realize how much everything is tied together. Inflation, interest rates, the way people are spending money—it's all one big web. I was reading about some of these macroeconomic trends earlier. It's interesting how certain sectors just react differently than others. Some people think things are headed for a massive correction, while others are convinced we're just seeing a standard cycle. I tend to stay pretty neutral on it. It’s easy to get caught up in the panic or the hype, but if you just look at the numbers, they tell a very specific story. It's not always as dramatic as the news makes it sound. There’s this idea that consumer spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now. That might be true, or it might be a temporary cushion. Everything feels a bit fragmented. One day the job market looks incredibly strong, and the next, you hear about layoffs in tech or manufacturing. It's just constant movement. It's like when you go to a local Farmer's Market and see how prices for basic goods have changed compared to last year. It's tangible. You don't need a PhD to see that the cost of living is playing out in real-time. People are feeling it. Whether that leads to a major shift in policy from Congress or just a slow grind stays to be seen. I'm just watching it unfold. No need to rush to conclusions. Just observing.
The Federal Reserve is making moves again. It’s all about those interest rates and how they ripple through everything we touch. People are talking about whether the economy is actually cooling down or if we're just hitting a temporary plateau. I was looking at some data earlier, and it feels like we're in this weird limbo where nobody quite knows if a recession is coming or if we've somehow dodged the bullet entirely. It’s easy to get lost in the numbers, though. You see these headlines about inflation and employment, and it starts to feel like a giant puzzle where the pieces keep changing shape while you're trying to fit them together. Some analysts think the Fed is being too cautious, while others say they should have pivoted months ago. Personally, I don't think there's a right answer, just different ways of looking at the same messy reality. It reminds me of when I was walking through the Farmer's Market last weekend. Everything seemed fine on the surface—prices were steady, people were buying their groceries—but you could tell there was a bit of tension in the air regarding how much things actually cost compared to last year. It's that same disconnect between the big macroeconomic theories and what people are feeling when they pull out their wallets. Anyway, the situation remains uncertain. We'll just have to watch how the next round of meetings goes and see which way the wind blows. It's all very much up in the air.
Thanks, cheers. |
We’re already stuck in a dead end. We owe way more than there's actually any money in the country. To be honest, that money doesn't even really exist anymore because it's just fiction on some balance sheet—it's all unbacked.
It’s pretty obvious to everyone that if we're constantly importing more than we're exporting, we aren't actually going anywhere. We just sit around patting ourselves on the back and hoping things might look better tomorrow. Plus, there's really no reason to be racking up all this national debt just to chase profits for the country. I don't even need to explain that part, right? It's just how it works.
The US needs at least 20 billion dollars in new money every single year. If you take out 7 billion that goes straight toward imports, we’re looking at a gap of 13 billion. You could probably trim that down a bit more by cutting interest payments and what we earn on loans. So, it looks like an issuance of 12 billion would likely be enough.
After the reforms, the Dollar should absolutely stabilize while every other currency just inflates away. I mean, we could follow their lead and the government would end up with extra cash, but that totally kills any long-term sustainability for pension funds. It’s pretty simple. If pension funds are accumulating capital for future spending, you don't want the value of that money dropping. That's the ideal scenario. There shouldn't be a need to lose 2% of a fund's total value every single year just to cover management fees. Honestly, it feels like a lot of busy work—just charging people for doing next to nothing. And when you look at forty years of working, those losses aren't exactly negligible. Instead, these funds could lend that capital out at competitive interest rates—maybe around 2% real interest, capped at 50% of the total pool to prevent money multiplication issues—and that would support the economy in the best possible way.
The heavy lifting involved in organizing the economy and the financial sector... that’s work for actual experts. Real specialists. It's just one of those things. Still, it's a lot to ask of me to provide some perfectly polished, end-to-end solution that covers every single detail. That's not really how this works.
The direction we take really matters. It’s about having a clear vision instead of just running random experiments on the entire nation. I’m not sure where everyone else stands on this, but honestly, it would be great if people started promoting this specific approach to others. In my view, this is the pivot we need. It’s the kind of shift that actually gets things moving and provides a permanent solution for the future.
There’s still this lingering question about how to handle bank assets if they end up uncovered after interest rates jump over 50% or 100% on non-term accounts—you know, checking and savings accounts that aren't locked away. It would probably be best to recapitalize them via a federal decree or just move those uncovered assets into a new state-run bank. All that interest income from the new bank would flow straight back into the U.S. Treasury. Interest on fixed deposits would probably cap out at maybe 1% annually. Which actually makes sense, because honestly, the currency shouldn't be losing value anyway.
The whole issue with the balance of payments deficit and the exchange rate remains unresolved. There are plenty of ways to fix it. For example, we could look at barter systems, or maybe have importers buy foreign currency directly from exporters, or just borrow specifically to cover the gap between imports and exports. If we went with that last option, we’d need roughly $50 billion a year. That’s three times less borrowing than what we're doing right now. Our debt is growing by 14 to 17% every single year. In reality, it might be slightly lower, but it's still a disaster. At that pace, you see Americans and Greeks—well, the Greeks used to—borrowing too. Most of all that money is basically just paying rent on credit money, covering imports, and a little bit going toward profit.
With this plan, we could handle domestic needs through non-credit issuance. It would cut down the interest burden to a model that's actually sustainable, and we really need to start addressing our import problem. We can do a lot more on our own. We shouldn't be buying imports if there's decent domestic stuff available; the benefits are twofold. I'm talking about food—meat, fruit, vegetables, things like that—and services, like vacations. We simply cannot afford to spend our money on overseas trips. It's pure wastefulness, and it's going to ruin us.
On the energy front, the focus should be on cutting down energy imports, offsetting them with domestic production, and pushing toward true energy independence.
So, that’s the gist of it. We need to start moving away from buying imported goods and get to work on reforming the monetary and banking systems. Then, naturally, people can earn their money fairly, because that's the only way to guarantee its stability and value.
By the way, in case you didn't know, the White House rejected this entire plan. Their priority is getting the U.S. fully integrated into the European Union, and this plan doesn't fit that agenda. You can only view that move as staying the course toward destroying the country—with consequences that will be much worse than losing a war. This administration is leading us straight toward total economic enslavement, and they aren't budging. Any true patriot should see this and fight to turn things around as soon as possible.
Stay alive and stay smart.
…
