The Financial System and Money Supply

Amanda Allen4 said:Interest rates aren't some "scam." They represent a service—one you can choose to use or ignore—and, naturally, services have a cost. When you deal with interest, you are essentially buying time. You get something in return, period. This entire transaction is governed by basic supply and demand, without any element of coercion involved.

The real scam is our current monetary system—where money is just an abstraction based on absolutely nothing! And let's not forget the fractional reserve banking institution, which allows money to be conjured out of thin air. This is what drives systemic inflation and facilitates a massive transfer of wealth directly into the coffers of those who hold the monopoly on this fake currency and the monopoly on force—namely, the Government and the big banks.

The whole argument is contradictory. How can you buy time if it ends up being a losing game in the long run? You aren't buying time; you're just giving time to this decaying system. Now the Government is getting ready to dump $100 billion into investments. That is going to be a massive mistake.

Credit is essentially an expense. There isn't actually a real influx of cash; you're just simulating it through constant credit expansion. People are noticing that the core issue lies in credit money, which is generated by multiplying deposited funds.

Also, when looking for solutions, we have to include the philosophy of sustainable lending. For instance, does it make sense to split profits between the borrower and the lender? Profit comes from the issuance of money, so it's normal for economic profit to be the source used to satisfy the lender's profit. But it makes zero sense if lenders demand more profit than what the government actually issues. That just leads to infinite debt—which is exactly where we are now, since monetary profit in the country is effectively zero, or rather, equal to the foreign trade balance.

Only then could you say that credit was truly "buying time" and that this time could actually be paid back through real business activity. As it stands, the profits of some people are being built from the new debts of others via multiplied money. There is no real chance for everyone to pay back their loans, and there never will be unless things change.

In the past, you could borrow wheat and pay it back with interest once your harvest came in. But money doesn't just grow on trees, and there is no way to "fertilize" capital within a single nation because money isn't issued without creating debt. The only way to grow it is through exporting to other countries, but even that isn't a permanent solution.

So, I was talking about how much we really need some price controls, and then just a few days later, this interesting article pops up that hits on that exact point: .

I’ve been following this thread with so much interest! I mean, Maria Thomas48 is a total visionary, and honestly, I am 100% behind them. The only thing is... I don't really agree that the US government or the state can actually do anything about it, unfortunately. If we tried, the big banks would crush us before we could even blink—it'd be like a warning to everyone else. So, I guess having any kind of monetary autonomy without a complete overhaul of the global order is just a total illusion. It feels pretty obvious that we can't pay back money, just like no other country ever could or will. When the US cracks, the whole global economy goes down with it. Even the US Congress doesn't seem to have a clue what the Fed or the central bank is actually doing! I think China is going to be the biggest loser in this setup, while the debtors will be the ones walking away with the prize, because you just can't pay back money that doesn't actually exist. It'll just have to be forgiven and wiped clean. That's how a new monetary system will rise from the ashes, I bet. And let's face it, the US isn't going to give up an inch of territory just to collect on its debts, which is basically the only real way to settle things, and all the debtors will probably act the exact same way. It would be so wild to try and project how much more money they can print before things get super scarce—that's when the real crisis hits, I guess. I don't think anyone is even going to worry about repayment, because you can't return something that isn't real. It's almost like the US creates debt as if they ever intended to pay it back in the first place. Once this whole monetary system collapses, I think the countries with high levels of self-sufficiency are going to have the best outlook.

The centennial ideas and Nostradamus's solutions might just become the core concepts for a brand new world order... my biggest fear is just how messy the collapse of this current one is going to be...

I mean, if you ask me, the only real shot the USA—or honestly, any country really—has at staying afloat is by doubling down on debt to fund energy independence and massive productivity. We need to be self-sufficient, you know? Like, lean into our comparative advantages and just go for it! But man, our tourism industry? It’s basically a house of cards. If that whole thing collapses, I guess we're all just gonna be left out in the cold on our own.

mellowwolf6 said:I’ve been following this thread with so much interest! I mean, Maria Thomas48 is a total visionary, and honestly, I am 100% behind them. The only thing is... I don't really agree that the US government or the state can actually do anything about it, unfortunately. If we tried, the big banks would crush us before we could even blink—it'd be like a warning to everyone else. So, I guess having any kind of monetary autonomy without a complete overhaul of the global order is just a total illusion. It feels pretty obvious that we can't pay back money, just like no other country ever could or will. When the US cracks, the whole global economy goes down with it. Even the US Congress doesn't seem to have a clue what the Fed or the central bank is actually doing! I think China is going to be the biggest loser in this setup, while the debtors will be the ones walking away with the prize, because you just can't pay back money that doesn't actually exist. It'll just have to be forgiven and wiped clean. That's how a new monetary system will rise from the ashes, I bet. And let's face it, the US isn't going to give up an inch of territory just to collect on its debts, which is basically the only real way to settle things, and all the debtors will probably act the exact same way. It would be so wild to try and project how much more money they can print before things get super scarce—that's when the real crisis hits, I guess. I don't think anyone is even going to worry about repayment, because you can't return something that isn't real. It's almost like the US creates debt as if they ever intended to pay it back in the first place. Once this whole monetary system collapses, I think the countries with high levels of self-sufficiency are going to have the best outlook.

The centennial ideas and Nostradamus's solutions might just become the core concepts for a brand new world order... my biggest fear is just how messy the collapse of this current one is going to be...

It’s all just praise at this point. Honestly, our Government could pull off absolute miracles if they actually wanted to, but that’s not the problem. They have other priorities taking center stage instead of what actually matters to the citizens of the USA. It's frustrating. I was looking at some polls recently, and it's wild—it feels like people have been so brainwashed that they’d probably agree to having their own rights stripped away just to feel like something is finally moving. People just want progress so badly they'll accept anything.

Banks are only as powerful as the laws allow them to be. I’m talking about the banks registered here in the States. Sure, an overseas institution might trigger a financial freeze, but honestly, if we just showed some solid results, other countries would follow suit pretty quickly. Then, those big-shot bankers wouldn't have much left to work with. It really isn't any surprise why everyone is rushing toward gold right now. The end feels like it's approaching, and anything sitting in a vault as a gold bar certainly isn't going anywhere. Over in England, there's this movement for non-credit money that could trigger hyperinflation in just a few years if things go wrong. Hyperinflation is actually one way to kill off the power held by banks. When that happens, you don't keep your money in a bank anymore; you just spend it.

Here’s the latest thing I’ve been chewing on, just something I wanted to share with you regular folks. It’s about that whole mystery regarding why the most successful nations—the big exporters—are always carrying around massive amounts of debt. It finally clicked for me how this mechanism actually works to keep a powerhouse nation pinned to high debt levels. It basically comes down to this: a huge trade surplus with foreign countries looks like a massive influx of cash into the domestic banking system. That surge of deposits becomes the foundation for all that lending. Because there’s such a steady stream of money coming in, interest rates stay low. You only have to look at our own situation here in the States, where interest rates can spike because there isn't enough liquidity flowing through the system, and the whole picture changes completely. Those cheap loans are what drive the boom, the actual growth we see. But here is the catch. You can't really shrink the debt. Why? Because all that profit from exports gets sucked right back into paying interest on the circulating money and fueling further credit expansion. It feels like banks are essentially manufacturing money out of thin air through a bit of a shell game. All the current profits end up in their hands, while a mountain of debt keeps growing, which then has to be covered by even more exports down the road. There is such a desperate need for fresh capital just to feed those banking interests that there's barely anything left over for the essentials—things like schools, Social Security, healthcare, the military, and all that.

It all comes down to free trade agreements. They make exporting way easier and stop people from slapping on those massive tariff barriers just to block imports they don't need. Honestly, high tariffs would actually give our domestic economy a fighting chance to step up, produce its own goods, and build some real independence. When you look at it that way, signing a free trade deal with a less developed nation really just ends up causing harm.

Some people might find this hard to wrap their heads around, but honestly, it’s just an accurate look at how things are playing out. If we suddenly became major exporters here in the States, we’d see this exact same pattern unfolding. Of course, that isn't some magic fix. Even now, you see this massive amount of credit money flooding into the economy, which just puts more pressure on businesses and ends up unfairly shifting wealth straight into the pockets of bankers.

Look, we all agree on this one point. If you want an economy to actually survive, you have to build up energy independence. You need to be independent in every other way, too. We just can't keep borrowing money indefinitely to pay for imports. It’s not sustainable. And this whole system where we tie our fuel prices to whatever they're charging in much wealthier nations? That is pure financial suicide for our entire economy. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. By doing that, our local businesses won't be able to scale down or adjust because those massive energy costs will trigger a massive wave of price hikes. Everything will spiral upward until the whole thing collapses into chaos and riots. And honestly, it's going to happen fast.

It’s not even directly about the financial system itself, really. It's more that building an economy based entirely on credit has completely warped how wealth is actually generated. We've reached a point where most economic experts and analysts can't even wrap their heads around who is actually pulling the strings and who is footing the bill. Especially when they start talking about long-term development plans or future outlooks. They just don't get it.

So, I actually stumbled upon this discussion from eleven years ago just the other day (). It really shows how little has actually changed since then. Honestly, it feels like we're talking about today's headlines. There are a few specific parts in there where economists were already concluding back then that money multiplication plays a massive role in triggering crises. It’s just funny because it never occurred to them to actually try eliminating money multiplication to see what happens. My own takeaway is that it's the main driver behind inflation—and debt slavery—or even hyperinflation, depending on whether the Government keeps the printing presses off or keeps them running.

The wise ones saw it coming.

So, she tried playing around with some Polish eye doctor using credit they didn't even have, and then—boom—that plane carrying the whole Polish government leadership goes down. If this whole system is actually sustainable, then we are honestly never going to make it out of this mess. But, I don't know, maybe I'm being optimistic, but I really do believe there's a limit to how much fake money can be printed before things finally snap, and maybe that's when we can actually start hoping for some real change.

mellowwolf6 said:So, she tried playing around with some Polish eye doctor using credit they didn't even have, and then—boom—that plane carrying the whole Polish government leadership goes down. If this whole system is actually sustainable, then we are honestly never going to make it out of this mess. But, I don't know, maybe I'm being optimistic, but I really do believe there's a limit to how much fake money can be printed before things finally snap, and maybe that's when we can actually start hoping for some real change.

If that’s actually true, then it was pretty foolish to keep the whole business of non-credit money issuance—you know, through those roundabout methods—hidden from the public. It’s vital that we all recognize who our real enemies are. We have to identify the people pushing for central banking, the ones advocating for banks to multiply money out of thin air, and those trying to prevent the government from issuing its own currency. You see this pattern everywhere, from the entire European Union to the World Bank and the IMF.

Quincy:

If this whole system is actually sustainable, then we’re never going to make it out of this.

It’s sustainable, really—assuming that economic slavery is exactly what they're aiming for.

Quincy:

I still lean towards the idea that there’s a hard limit on all this fiat money. Once we hit that ceiling, maybe then we can actually start hoping for some real change.

That’s exactly why central banks exist. That’s why the Federal Reserve buys up government debt. It isn't because the country is actually going broke. No, it's about protecting the people who cooked up this whole mess—the big bankers. They just offloaded all that debt onto the Federal Reserve, which is basically just an arm of the central government anyway. It was a clever way to dump a failing business model while still making a profit like nothing ever happened. The European Union is one of those setups where anything can happen, except for long-term prosperity.

The Dollar is definitely going to crash. Energy prices are bound to spike because of this obvious money printing—it's just what happens when you create all this unnecessary debt within the credit system based on lending money and ballooning debt levels. Once energy costs start climbing, it kicks off this whole cycle of inflationary price hikes. It’s a downward spiral that leads to one of two things: hyperinflation or widespread poverty. Neither of those outcomes is going to happen quietly. You can expect massive protests and civil unrest. What happens after the chaos breaks out is really up to us. People who don't know any better are way too easy to manipulate and con.

Russia is such a massive exporter of oil and gas, yet they just signaled they’re looking to sell off state assets. It shows they're seriously short on cash. Honestly, seeing fuel prices spike feels like a pretty logical next step.

May those who are wise and alive endure.

I mean, you're talking about printing bonds, right? Because you can't just print currency out of thin air—it's more like trying to justify some imaginary money using extra value that you might have, if you're lucky, but let's be real, there's never enough of it to actually cover the debt plus all that interest.

mellowwolf6 said:I mean, you're talking about printing bonds, right? Because you can't just print currency out of thin air—it's more like trying to justify some imaginary money using extra value that you might have, if you're lucky, but let's be real, there's never enough of it to actually cover the debt plus all that interest.

Printing bonds for a government running a permanent balance of payments deficit with foreign nations leads to a constantly growing debt that expands exponentially. Countries with a surplus with foreign nations, based on what was described above, are basically just surviving, but because they think they've reached their peak, they view it as some massive achievement.

Currency can be printed. Some call it fiat money, which is non-credit money. But when you combine non-credit money with bank multiplication, you get hyperinflation in a very short window. We saw this happen back during the Marković era.

It’s honestly irresponsible how today's economists aren't educated enough on this. Everyone knows that during Marković's time, we saw beautiful growth first, followed immediately by hyperinflation. The math explains it easily. For instance, $33 of issued non-credit money could turn into $205 more credit money. The bank would pay savers 4% on $238 ($9.50). There would be $33 in the vault, while earning 7% on $205 ($14). That difference leaves a profit of $4.75 annually. It’s clear you'd need to add 14.42% new money (of what was issued) just to feed the bank's appetite—and that's not even counting the savers, where it hits 43%. That is a far cry from the 3.5 to 5% of new money that can actually be added and backed by newly created value. In other words, the issuance of non-credit money would have to grow by 43% year over year, not 3.5 to 5%. Obviously, that leads straight to hyperinflation.

The situation is different when there is no money multiplication. You don't get that massive boom (money expansion), but you also don't get inflation or a debt crisis. If money is lacking, the state can issue more and pay everyone fairly who worked honestly. The money being issued is backed by honest earnings and the creation of additional value through labor.

There will never be too much money because there are always projects that need investment. Only now, we are making it possible to invest from our own accumulation rather than using non-existent money that carries interest which will never actually show up in the system. Interest should be part of the earnings given to the creditor. The only problem is that this means there needs to be more money in the system, and that’s exactly what central bank systems do—they work through credit, creating even more debt. Or rather, it's moving toward debt slavery for no reason, and we've all been cheated.

Non-credit money allows for free education, healthcare, real pension funds, cultural programs, sports programs, etc. In a credit-based system, all of that eventually gets destroyed to the point where even basic survival becomes questionable. The poverty rate in the European Union is over 20%. All of this is a consequence of giving banks the ability to create money out of nothing just so they can turn a profit. It's impossible and it's a scam. Power comes from the people, and money comes from the state. Not from the bank. No amount of taxes on banks is going to fix this. The solution lies in reform (see signature link). Anyone with half a brain can see this is a fraud. You see it in reality. And it needs to change. The sooner the better for us and our children and grandchildren. Is this what we fought for, to live in a country where we are economic slaves?

Long live the wise.

Nazi Germany was actually the first to implement psychological testing for military recruitment. They utilized two specific metrics—diligence and intelligence—to sort candidates into four distinct categories.
The diligent and intelligent recruits were assigned to engineering corps.
Those who were lazy but intelligent were groomed for officer training.
The combination of laziness and low intelligence resulted in placement within the infantry.
Finally, those categorized as both diligent and unintelligent were simply discharged from the service.

Back then, military structures were less complex, which explains such a blunt classification system. However, there is a crucial reason why they purged the diligent yet unintelligent individuals. Can one hundred smart people truly fix the damage caused by a single fool? And what havoc can an unstoppable, stubborn fool wreak on a mission?

.....

You can find a similar perspective on solving economic slavery over in the United Kingdom at: http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/solutions/. Their approach involves removing transaction accounts from the money multiplier process entirely. The only real snag is they haven't quite nailed the credit multiplication issue. Based on their own math, money issuance could still climb up to 7% of the total sum.

There are articles regarding Debt-free money available at: http://www.islamicparty.com/commonsense/woergl24.htm

A lot of pieces discussing money—specifically debt creation and such—in the United Kingdom can be found here: http://prosperityuk.com/2005/09/our-...-debt-slavery/

And there's another article that talks about money being essentially debt: http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/monetarysystem.html

And so on. There’s plenty of literature out there. You can just search using keywords like "creation Money without Debt."

The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...eserve_banking is full of facts that are basically impossible to argue against. Like, how are you supposed to pay back 110 if you were only given 100 and there was nothing else in existence before that?

Also, fractional reserve banking is only half of today's problem. It multiplies every single bit of new money that hits bank accounts. The other half is the issuance of money without debt—which only actually makes sense if money stops multiplying within the banks. While nobody is asking "why do we need credit money?", the real question should be "Why do we let banks issue money and then capture it through imaginary savings?" The state could handle this entire process of creating new money without ever creating debt.

Some people on forums are trying to revolutionize things by saying seizing bank assets is the answer. But that isn't a solution. Taking over bad practices doesn't mean those practices will create prosperity once they are in government hands. Every new credit is just more debt. In the end, it's just a larger monetary deficit, which leads to economic ruin because no matter how hard people work or how much effort they put in, the total sum is always heading toward collapse.

For anyone looking to actually learn something, I stumbled upon Simon Dixon’s blog: http://www.simondixon.org/blog/. If you need a hand, just use Google Translate to get it into English.

The stuff on this blog was written by an economist with real experience, and he holds the exact same fundamental views on fractional reserve banking and how the government issues money. It's enough to put an end to all those insinuations about whether my claims are accurate. Honestly, I didn't even need an economics degree to figure this out—just basic math. Just good, old-fashioned elementary school math and sound logic can yield better results than a full degree combined with a Master's and a PhD. For instance, Slavko Kulić gets quite a bit of attention for his takes, but if you actually compare his positions to Simon Dixon's, you'll see that Kulić isn't even close to the actual solution.

So, I highly recommend sitting down and reading Simon Dixon's entire blog. It’s packed with detailed breakdowns of the processes that explain how treating money as debt creates these crises in the first place.

I truly admire Nostradamus; to expend so much time and energy on absolutely nothing... You could have at least read Samuelson twice just to get an introduction, and things might actually make sense to you. Would you attempt open-heart surgery without medical school? This notion of pumping arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is a level of stupidity unparalleled—something even the former South used to attempt, and we all know how successful their economy was. You and that gentleman are advocating for the bleakest form of planned economy; with ideas like those, you might as well head straight to North Korea. Though, they did recently execute a finance minister there because he failed to curb inflation, so perhaps think twice before proceeding.
Let's stick to the basics:
1) Money serves as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value....
Your nonsense fails against all three fundamental definitions of money....
Money ceases to be a medium of exchange if you simply pump it into the system. The actual volume of goods and services provided in the country remains identical, whether that number is a million, a trillion, or any other figure. Your injection of capital will trigger a correction in the other two factors; everything becomes more expensive (that's called inflation) because having more money chasing the same amount of goods and services drives up unit prices. It is simple math, proven empirically a million times over. Furthermore, you destroy the third function: the store of value. Your idea is nothing more than tested communist lunacy designed to seize from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The only issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't bother working if someone intends to take their earnings and give them to failures. That is why communism and its various iterations collapsed.
2) What kind of madness is it to suggest everyone must profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. It’s just like school: some get A's, some get C's, and some fail. Not everyone can get an A, because that is a contradiction that nullifies the grading scale itself. The goal of capitalism is for the inefficient to fail, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to create wealth. The problem is that even those winners have to breathe air. Much like right now, where you and that fellow push pointless theories that provide zero benefit to society or the economy. This is where the government steps in, seizing from the successful through corporate taxes and handing it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (those on welfare). The crisis arises when the budget becomes bloated with parasites, corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract, and so on, eventually dragging down the productive citizens as well—which is exactly what happens here. This isn't a problem you and that man can solve with two elementary school formulas....

Maria Thomas48 is doing great work, and honestly, Simon Dixon is just as solid.
I really have to hand it to you for that level of critical thinking and for having the sheer guts to stick to your guns when defending those contrarian viewpoints of yours!
It feels to me like you are moving in exactly the right direction.

rustydrifter72 said:I truly admire Nostradamus; to expend so much time and energy on absolutely nothing... You could have at least read Samuelson twice just to get an introduction, and things might actually make sense to you. Would you attempt open-heart surgery without medical school? This notion of pumping arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is a level of stupidity unparalleled—something even the former South used to attempt, and we all know how successful their economy was. You and that gentleman are advocating for the bleakest form of planned economy; with ideas like those, you might as well head straight to North Korea. Though, they did recently execute a finance minister there because he failed to curb inflation, so perhaps think twice before proceeding.
Let's stick to the basics:
1) Money serves as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value....
Your nonsense fails against all three fundamental definitions of money....
Money ceases to be a medium of exchange if you simply pump it into the system. The actual volume of goods and services provided in the country remains identical, whether that number is a million, a trillion, or any other figure. Your injection of capital will trigger a correction in the other two factors; everything becomes more expensive (that's called inflation) because having more money chasing the same amount of goods and services drives up unit prices. It is simple math, proven empirically a million times over. Furthermore, you destroy the third function: the store of value. Your idea is nothing more than tested communist lunacy designed to seize from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The only issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't bother working if someone intends to take their earnings and give them to failures. That is why communism and its various iterations collapsed.
2) What kind of madness is it to suggest everyone must profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. It’s just like school: some get A's, some get C's, and some fail. Not everyone can get an A, because that is a contradiction that nullifies the grading scale itself. The goal of capitalism is for the inefficient to fail, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to create wealth. The problem is that even those winners have to breathe air. Much like right now, where you and that fellow push pointless theories that provide zero benefit to society or the economy. This is where the government steps in, seizing from the successful through corporate taxes and handing it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (those on welfare). The crisis arises when the budget becomes bloated with parasites, corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract, and so on, eventually dragging down the productive citizens as well—which is exactly what happens here. This isn't a problem you and that man can solve with two elementary school formulas....

Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

.......

Anything else I could say would just be repeating myself.

Every single hour, our government is basically throwing away $1.37 million because they haven't stepped up to stop banks from multiplying it and turning it into a tool for control—debt.

Think about how much that actually is—for 186,000 employees earning an average $1767 salary.
And a huge chunk of that cash would cycle right back into the treasury through sales tax. So, you'd essentially boost potential employment by another 23%, and that extra 23% would generate even more sales tax, and so on. Total employment could climb to 279,000 (that's over a 150% increase). Basically, using that $12 billion in non-credit money issuance could put nearly 280,000 people to work. That means we could employ 90% of the unemployed. Of course, the banks wouldn't be allowed to multiply the money anymore. The annual issuance would be equal to $1000 per person!? Just so nobody claims it's some massive, overwhelming amount of money. If you put that cash into a mutual fund, over 40 years of work, it would result in a balance of $40000 per person. A lot. I don't think so. You could buy a decent used car with that. Think about it: 40 years of work. 😕

Maria Thomas48 said:.......

Anything else I could say would just be repeating myself.

Every single hour, our government is basically throwing away $1.37 million because they haven't stepped up to stop banks from multiplying it and turning it into a tool for control—debt.

Think about how much that actually is—for 186,000 employees earning an average $1767 salary.
And a huge chunk of that cash would cycle right back into the treasury through sales tax. So, you'd essentially boost potential employment by another 23%, and that extra 23% would generate even more sales tax, and so on. Total employment could climb to 279,000 (that's over a 150% increase). Basically, using that $12 billion in non-credit money issuance could put nearly 280,000 people to work. That means we could employ 90% of the unemployed. Of course, the banks wouldn't be allowed to multiply the money anymore. The annual issuance would be equal to $1000 per person!? Just so nobody claims it's some massive, overwhelming amount of money. If you put that cash into a mutual fund, over 40 years of work, it would result in a balance of $40000 per person. A lot. I don't think so. You could buy a decent used car with that. Think about it: 40 years of work. 😕

That all sounds fine on paper—it would be wonderful to hire up 90% of the unemployed. But what exactly are those 186,000—and eventually 280,000—employees supposed to actually *do*? 🤷 Build new apartment complexes all over Washington, D.C.?

I don't really have much to say about this specific topic right now. It feels like one of those things where people get too worked up over nothing. I was just sitting here thinking about how most discussions end up being circular anyway. You talk, they talk, and nothing actually changes. It's fine. Everything is fine. Just an observation. Maria Thomas48 says:
It’s all fine in theory. It would be great if we could just put 90% of the unemployed back to work. But then you have to look at the math. If we hit those numbers, what happens when we go from 186,000 to 280,000 jobs? You'd actually need people to be working. 🤷 Building more apartments around Washington, D.C.? I don't know. It feels like one of those things people just argue about constantly without actually looking at the math. You see these massive construction cranes popping up everywhere lately. It’s just happening. Some say we need them because everyone is moving to the city and there isn't enough room left. Others think it's just going to make everything feel cramped and expensive. I tend to look at it quite neutrally. If you build them, prices might stabilize, or they might not. It’s hard to say for sure. There's always a lot of noise surrounding urban development projects these days. Just a thought.

I was re-running some numbers on the sales tax. It turns out the gross total is actually lower than we thought. If you look at the math, we’re talking about 228,000 jobs gone.

So, what have they actually been doing up until now? Honestly, nothing. They failed because there was just no way to make it profitable. But now, suddenly, this money shows up—money that actually makes things viable—and we’re all just sitting here, kind of lost, wondering what on earth we're supposed to do with it.

First things first, you have to hire people for healthcare, schools, the bare minimum of bureaucracy, the military, and the police. That's the foundation. You also need to make sure higher education is accessible to everyone who can manage it. Beyond that, we really need people working on the railroads and keeping our infrastructure maintained. It's just basic stuff.

People keep saying there isn't enough money to build that canal connecting the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers. It feels off. Honestly, we should be focusing on giving retirees better pensions instead of having them out there picking up trash.

At the end of the day, everyone needs food and basic supplies. We really need to be getting those things from domestic producers. When the government just prints money like that, there isn't enough actual foreign currency backing it up. It doesn't make sense to import everything without a good reason—it's basically just trading goods for nothing. You can actually live quite well if we focus on growing our own agriculture and supporting local industry. People buying local keeps the economy moving, which helps businesses turn a profit and eventually earn back that printed cash.

Anyone who doesn't buy into this should try looking at it from the perspective of a large family managing their own budget and outside investments. If you want to make sure a family stays profitable, that local cash flow has to hold its value, and you have to be bringing in fresh capital every single year. It’s pretty simple. Of course, for that to work, the family actually has to produce something. You need to create real value that matters both to the household and to the broader American market. I'm talking about things like food production, livestock, real estate, heavy machinery, and so on. You have to build something tangible.

Giving money away to people who aren't actually doing anything... it basically means you're saying that money and doing nothing have the exact same value. So, really, it’s a fair question.

It’s not really about finding something worthwhile to do. Like, I mean, there are still so many fields out there that need to be cleared of landmines. That part isn't the issue. The real problem is simply that the money isn't there.

Shipbuilding was supposed to be unprofitable? How does that even work? If you're ordering a vessel from abroad, you have to take out loans, and then you can't pay them back. It seems pretty profitable to me. Especially if you actually have the cash on hand to cover it. Just think about it: the government orders a ship using newly issued money and then sells it to bring in foreign currency. What exactly is the problem there? We ended up with the hard currency, and people are getting paid. Now those people can go buy stuff from overseas because they actually have the dollars. It honestly looks like a straight-up swap. The main difference was that there just wasn't any financing available to get the ship built.The ship starts out about 20% cheaper. It’s honestly wild. Everyone looks happy and satisfied. Shipbuilding actually becomes profitable and competitive again. Of course, you have to make sure the vessel is built using as much American-made material as possible.

You could apply this same logic to agriculture. Instead of farmers drowning in high-interest loans just to manage expensive production costs, the government could step in with advance payments. They pay the upfront amount, and then the farmers deliver the grain directly to the state. It changes the whole math—no more crushing debt, and production becomes much cheaper overall. The real question is, what’s stopping us? If the government owns the vessel, they control the grain for domestic trade. They can also export it if they want to. By doing this, you effectively cut out the middleman speculators and those parasitic wholesalers who just sit there sucking value out of the system. We really don't need them.

The government can pull off things that corporations and banks simply can't. It's pretty obvious. They can guarantee money and create it without running up debt. That’s just how it works. But at the same time, you don't need the state meddling in every single thing. There has to be a limit. The essential stuff should be under their wing—things like energy, utilities, food production, and healthcare. Those are basic human needs. Everything else? There is plenty of room for that to happen elsewhere. Service industries, industrial development, manufacturing, retail, research, all of that. That part belongs to everyone else.

We really need to sit down and figure out how to build a whole new way of living. It's about defining a concept for society that actually works—one that’s based on real money instead of just drowning in endless credit and debt. We should probably start drafting a plan to implement this kind of system. When you actually have capital, then the strategy matters. But when the pockets are empty, no amount of planning changes the reality. Some people call it a "planned economy," but I think calling it a "prosperity-driven economy" is more accurate. We have plenty of experts capable of designing a system built on prosperity, we just lack the leadership to actually guide us there.

The shift toward a non-credit-based system is inevitable, so it’s better to be informed now. If they managed to sell us on this credit-heavy system for several hundred years, then this supposed transformation into something "better" might just be another clever mask for a different kind of scam.

You always have to look at it this way: "Whatever I wouldn't want happening to my own family, I don't want happening to my country." Wealth distribution is the core issue here. Every person in society needs to understand exactly what portion they can earn through their own hard work.

May the wise survive.

As we head into 2011, I wish everyone luck, good health, steady jobs, money, and wisdom!

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

Quoting anyone who brings up the Bible right now is like trying to reinvent the wheel before you even know how a circle works. It’s like a middle schooler trying to tackle advanced physics just because they heard Newton's name mentioned once. You don't just jump into it. First, you master Newtonian mechanics and quantum theory; you actually learn how to handle derivatives and integrals. You don't try to explain the behavior of a hydrogen atom using nothing but basic addition and subtraction. Do you see my point? It's all well and good that you're studying, but you really should have mastered the fundamentals before attempting to construct such nebulous theories.

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

This isn't some mere theory; it is an exact fact. The sheer volume of money matters, but if that currency loses its value, the quantity becomes irrelevant. Bravo—you finally realized this isn't simple math like 1+2=3. You have 4.5 million individuals constantly driving the demand for products and services, shifting their needs, following trends, and oscillating between pessimism and optimism. New products emerge constantly because people crave them.

A lot of things are actually becoming much more affordable if you haven't noticed. Think about what a high-end laptop cost ten years ago. Today, you can pick up a machine that’s several times more powerful for a fraction of that price. That is simply technological advancement driving higher productivity.

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

What a complete non-starter. Managing both primary and secondary issuances is an incredibly demanding and highly technical responsibility for the Federal Reserve; their entire purpose is to balance those levers to prevent inflation while ensuring liquidity doesn't dry up. That is precisely what you would be attempting to do using some imaginary, non-credit-based currency. The value of the macro-credit multiplier, which is realized over infinite phases (where $t_v = \infty$), can be expressed by this formula:

k(t->infinity)=1/(q+r), where q represents the required reserve ratio and r is the liquidity coverage ratio. For heaven's sake, pick up a textbook and stop talking nonsense.
This isn't some massive debt crisis. The money flows directly into the treasury and circulates right back through pensions and public works. Think of it as an additional tax the government levies to maintain the stability of the monetary system. By your logic, should the government collapse simply because it collects taxes?

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

Export isn't just dumping surplus inventory onto the global market. What exactly are we supposed to be exporting—our leftovers? Exporting is about exchange. It’s about comparative advantage. I’m better at designing semiconductors, you’re better at running that beachside bistro your grandfather left you, and the Germans are better at building high-end cars. If everyone could produce everything themselves, money and international trade wouldn't even exist. Specialization? Ever heard of the concept? China sees massive results because they excel at producing things at a low cost. While you were busy typing that post, a kid in Shanghai was already producing... $3.25 Ten phones. You can’t sell him your absolute nonsense, yet you still want his inventory. He offers you credit to move the stock, but you have nothing of value to offer him in return, nor any way to pay that debt back. Now, instead of actually picking up a job, you’re looking for someone to hand you interest-free cash just so you can keep buying phones and wasting your life on the internet instead of working. Before long, everyone else notices and decides they’d rather skip the work too. That is what we call a communist economy.

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

The problem is partially monetary, but not in the way you imagine. The issue lies in the poor exchange rate established when the Dollar was introduced and how it’s been artificially propped up through credit. If a German manufacturer produces a car for $20000 and an American produces it for $40000, then the American is half as productive, and the exchange rate must reflect that. Without debt, there wouldn't even be a problem because a smart, hardworking American would just hoard Dollars and buy foreign products that are twice as cheap. That would eventually deplete the foreign reserves. But those reserves don't run dry because money is constantly being pumped in from abroad. Devaluing the currency now would just lead to ruin for many citizens. There are no simple or painless solutions left. Not even a hundred Molotov cocktails will solve this; they'll only make it worse...

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

Excuse me? What "reduction in the money supply"? The Federal Reserve regulates monetary aggregates without breaking a sweat. Do you honestly think banks just eat cash for breakfast? That's just another tax; if your earnings are $3333 gross, the government takes over half, so those few percentage points for the banks aren't exactly huge. And don't act like bankers don't eat or that they work in space fueled by nothing but love for their clients. Bank profits flow back into the system just like any other money. You can argue whether banks are overpaid, but that's a different conversation. You could ask the same thing about AT&T; they pull in $2 billion in pure profit annually...

Maria Thomas48 said:Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

It seems you haven't quite grasped that time exists and that money must circulate. Where are you getting this idea that banks are just stashing money away? You clearly haven't heard that the Federal Reserve threatened banks with increased reserve requirements if they tried to move foreign currency out of the country, as that would destabilize the entire system. The real problems here are unproductivity, corruption, amateurism, parasitism, crime, and people living far beyond their means.

g. I respect your effort to cloud everything over with stories, but you're just repeating the same things as Closeau. You are intentionally skipping over any actual direct answer.

The whole text is nothing but platitudes. For example, specialization. Like, why would we specialize in anything if we aren't making money off it? And if we are making money, then everyone in different specializations can't all be profiting. So that definition is just pointless.

However, under a system of free trade—without all the extra fluff—Germany wouldn't be doing so well economically. They would be much less developed because they wouldn't be able to exploit others to fuel their own growth.

For instance, you’ve elevated the role of the central bank to something divine, and I've written quite a bit about the central bank, but the most important thing is that the whole concept is a banker's invention. It's like a Trojan horse. A gift intended to destroy you. Just one simple thought experiment can show you what a central bank actually is: Combine all the commercial banks and the central bank into one single organization. And what do you get? You get a money printing press where a meager 50 million plus 750 million from corporate taxes gives the state enough to lend money back to the state at 6% interest per year. Hey, I want in on that business too! And what do you have to do to make that work? To prevent credit inflation, you just raise interest rates. Easy. That's my question. What other business does that? And you can't lose customers because everyone always needs money.

I know money multiplication in banks doesn't happen instantly. I wasn't born yesterday. But that doesn't change the end result.

The time gap—credit versus repayment—is a reality, but it's a moot point because there is no way to find the money required to pay the interest. So it's just a fairy tale for the naive. Let's say: the Federal Reserve lends money to all citizens at $3333 and demands $3667 back in a year. We already know that won't work. But we are living in that exact situation: we have 12,444 in primary money from the Federal Reserve and we need to pay interest on it just so it reaches the budget. Where does that come from? The Federal Reserve doesn't care; that's just how the law works.

One could say plenty about the Federal Reserve, but they just operate according to the crooked laws we passed ourselves.

Quincy:

He gives you a loan so you can sell something, but you still have nothing to offer him in return and you can't pay the loan back.

That is economic slavery right there. Why didn't he give you cell phones in exchange for what you have? If you have nothing, what good is a loan? And what good is the phone? First, go do something productive for the economy.

Quincy:

Hello??? What do you mean a reduction in money supply??? The Federal Reserve regulates monetary aggregates without any issue... Do you honestly think banks eat money???

I am talking about a reduction in the money supply in a way that ends up as someone's profit (savings). Whether it's a bank, an individual, or a corporation. That money sits deposited in bank accounts. The person looking to get money through credit borrows that money and can repay the principal, while the interest is paid from the remaining money that isn't being held for savings (from transaction accounts). The bank covers its costs, pays itself, and pays the savers—those same people who had excess money and aren't spending it. Practically speaking, this means there is even more money available for loans, and even less money available to actually earn. Only a fool would think this process goes on forever without consequences. In practice, this is called a lack of spending, while banks get fat. "Banks really do eat money." Their job is to accumulate money because that's how they reach new profits. And profit is never enough, is it?

Quincy:

The issue is partly monetary, but not quite in the way you’re thinking about it. It comes down to the bad exchange rate set when the dollar was introduced and how we artificially propped it up through debt. Look, if a German worker produces a car for $20000 and an American worker produces one for $40000, then the American is half as productive, period. In that scenario, the exchange rate needs to be two dollars to the mark. If people hadn't taken on all this debt, there wouldn't be a crisis, because any smart American wouldn't sit around idling—they'd just trade their currency for marks to buy foreign goods that are twice as cheap. Eventually, the foreign reserves would dry up. But they aren't drying up because money is constantly being pumped in from abroad. Devaluing the currency now is just a fast track to ruin for most people. There aren't any easy or painless fixes left. Not even a hundred Molotov cocktails could solve this; they'd probably just make things worse...

That makes sense if you're looking at emerging economies. But if energy prices are the same everywhere, where is the balance? All other prices are based on those energy costs. This means in an open economy, a less productive industry is forced to suffer because it becomes "too expensive." You can't prevent that unless you rely strictly on your own strength. Now, imagine we pay more for our own products because our productivity is low, but we also have tariffs making foreign goods too pricey. Honestly, paying more for domestic goods isn't the issue; the government can always print enough money to cover that. What actually makes a product expensive? High labor input? That just means our standard of living will be lower, but at least we won't be drowning in debt. With an open economy, it gets even uglier. People maintain their lifestyle by taking out loans, which just hollows out the actual economy. This whole idea of specialization is a myth—I think I explained that earlier. It's just a buzzword used to push globalization. And let's be real, globalization isn't for the benefit of the workers; it's about exploiting them. Everyone knows that. Anyway, the topic isn't international trade per se, but it definitely impacts the stability of the financial system. Less developed systems simply cannot survive in open trade; they just collapse. History has proven that over and over.

That's a good read regarding Argentina's collapse. You can see there what happens when you aim for a stable exchange rate, privatize core industries and banks, and sign free trade agreements.

So, for America, implementing a stable exchange rate, privatization, lowering tariffs, and maybe joining a free trade bloc is a guaranteed path to destruction. It's exactly like Argentina. And it's happening because the entire system is built on money acting as credit. Because of that, we have to deal with the issue of credit-based money specifically, otherwise, we are just following Greece's trajectory at a steady pace.

Non-credit money is our only way out. Some call it fiat money. On top of that, you'd need high mandatory reserves for banks (over 50%) and a trade surplus. Price controls are obviously necessary to keep the currency stable. Doing this could jumpstart the economy, boost employment, reduce debt creation, and clear out national debts. If someone doesn't believe that, they only have themselves to blame. Of course, there are no real-world examples, because for the last few centuries, banks have been allowed to engage in massive money multiplication.

Over at http://mandrilo.com/index.php/stop-bankama, there's a historical breakdown of how banks operate. Enjoy.