The Financial System and Money Supply

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

We simply cannot know everything. A doctor isn't expected to be an expert in electrical engineering, physics, or agriculture. A single corporation can't lead the market in winemaking, automotive manufacturing, and software development all at once. Even a nation's strengths are dictated by its geography—you can't build a winter tourism empire if you're located in the middle of the Sahara, just as you can't focus on large-scale farming if you're situated in the Arctic. Ultimately, everyone has the potential to prosper through the exchange of goods and services—but only IF they actually have something valuable to offer in return.

Nostradamus As I stated before:
However, if Germany operated under a pure free-trade system without those extra protections, their economy wouldn't be nearly as dominant. They would be far less developed because they wouldn't have the ability to exploit others to fuel their own growth.

Good grief, what a mess... If anyone is being taken advantage of here, it’s Germany. What exactly are we handing over to them? Low-end tourism and some basic agricultural goods. In return, we're importing sophisticated machinery, high-quality tools, Fords, and Mercedes-Benzes. On top of that, they don't even pay countries like Greece for their exports; those nations are essentially living off Germany's back. I have no idea which idiot in Germany actually agreed to join the European Union.

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

You missed the point again. The profits generated by the Federal Reserve from that 6% discount rate go directly into the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve isn't some private entity like you seem to think it is. You need to view this as just another tax levied by the federal government. The state borrows from private banks—but by what right? The root of the issue is that the government spends far more than it collects in tax revenue. It’s exactly like you spending more every month than you actually earn. Whether there's interest involved or not, you're broke because you're living beyond your means. I realize it hasn't clicked for you yet, but monetary regulation is an entire science. You seem to believe the whole economy can be boiled down to two elementary school formulas. If you keep studying, you'll eventually realize that isn't how it works. People dedicate their entire lives to specializing in economics; they study for decades, and some even win Nobel Prizes for developing entirely new models and discoveries. Believe it or not, that actually happens.

rustydrifter72: "Quote:"

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

You still don't get it... The Federal Reserve doesn't prioritize dealing with individual citizens. But even if they did, what’s the actual issue? Interest is paid monthly and funneled back into the budget, which then gets redistributed or handed off to banks. Those banks distribute it among their employees and managers, leaving whatever is left for the shareholders—who just go out and buy more Mercedes-Benzes. Then, some executive from Mercedes-Benz heads down to Florida for a vacation, and we end up footing the bill with those ridiculous $3 fees for trash that isn't even worth fifty cents to manufacture. With that money, we might actually manage to pay back the principal and interest to the bank for that Ford we plan on buying once the season is over. The real problem arises if that German executive decides to move his operations to Turkey because it's cheaper and more profitable there; meanwhile, we're stuck here trying to drive a new Ford.
I am glad to see you have evolved your thinking. You hit the nail on the head: you must have something of value to offer BEFORE you attempt to leverage credit. If you don't have assets, do not take out loans. Your "brilliant" idea was originally just to distribute non-creditworthy money so everyone could go out and buy a Ford, while providing absolutely nothing in return. That is simply communism. And believe me, it has failed everywhere.

rustydrifter72: "The current economic trajectory remains deeply concerning. While some analysts suggest we are approaching a period of stability, I believe we are actually witnessing the arrival of a Trojan horse within our fiscal policy. We cannot simply ignore the underlying volatility."

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

Banks only turn a profit when they lend money, not when they sit on it. I agree that this cycle can’t continue indefinitely, but that isn't because of the banks themselves—it's because you eventually run out of reliable borrowers. If you have one segment of the population that is responsible and saves money (by choosing to forgo certain luxuries) while another segment spends recklessly, banks will inevitably start extending credit to low-quality debtors. We have already established the fact: banks make their money by deploying capital, not by accumulating it. In the past, it was so easy in America that you could practically walk into a branch, show them a single piece of paper stating your income, and walk out with a mortgage. However, this represents a fundamental "bug" in capitalism, which is currently being patched through moderate inflation. This mechanism effectively ensures that someone who simply saves diligently over fifty years will see their purchasing power eroded, while the borrower ends up paying interest on a principal that is effectively shrinking in real value.

rustydrifter72: "Quote:"

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about suffering; it should be about lowering costs or boosting productivity. China struggles with incredibly low productivity, but they offset that with dirt-cheap labor and people working themselves to death. Taking out loans just to maintain a lifestyle is absolutely destructive. If those credits were being used to build new farms or factories, that would be a completely different story. Globalization is a massive win for developing nations like China and India. Initially, the West benefited by "exploiting" their inexpensive labor, but that allowed these countries to acquire the necessary expertise and technology, ensuring they come out on top in the long run. Through sheer hard work and manufacturing, they are steadily raising their standard of living while the West’s begins to decline. Globalization levels the playing field between nations. It is fundamentally positive for the human race, regardless of how much we in the West dislike having to sacrifice our own comforts.

Maria Thomas48 said: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.

There are plenty of real-world examples if you bother to study communist history. You can print out as much non-credit money as you want and implement all the price controls you like... and you'll successfully drive the economy down to the level of North Korea or Cuba. But hey, if that's what people want, be my guest...

rustydrifter72 said:We simply cannot know everything. A doctor isn't expected to be an expert in electrical engineering, physics, or agriculture. A single corporation can't lead the market in winemaking, automotive manufacturing, and software development all at once. Even a nation's strengths are dictated by its geography—you can't build a winter tourism empire if you're located in the middle of the Sahara, just as you can't focus on large-scale farming if you're situated in the Arctic. Ultimately, everyone has the potential to prosper through the exchange of goods and services—but only IF they actually have something valuable to offer in return.

Nostradamus As I stated before:
However, if Germany operated under a pure free-trade system without those extra protections, their economy wouldn't be nearly as dominant. They would be far less developed because they wouldn't have the ability to exploit others to fuel their own growth.

Good grief, what a mess... If anyone is being taken advantage of here, it’s Germany. What exactly are we handing over to them? Low-end tourism and some basic agricultural goods. In return, we're importing sophisticated machinery, high-quality tools, Fords, and Mercedes-Benzes. On top of that, they don't even pay countries like Greece for their exports; those nations are essentially living off Germany's back. I have no idea which idiot in Germany actually agreed to join the European Union.

You missed the point again. The profits generated by the Federal Reserve from that 6% discount rate go directly into the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve isn't some private entity like you seem to think it is. You need to view this as just another tax levied by the federal government. The state borrows from private banks—but by what right? The root of the issue is that the government spends far more than it collects in tax revenue. It’s exactly like you spending more every month than you actually earn. Whether there's interest involved or not, you're broke because you're living beyond your means. I realize it hasn't clicked for you yet, but monetary regulation is an entire science. You seem to believe the whole economy can be boiled down to two elementary school formulas. If you keep studying, you'll eventually realize that isn't how it works. People dedicate their entire lives to specializing in economics; they study for decades, and some even win Nobel Prizes for developing entirely new models and discoveries. Believe it or not, that actually happens.

rustydrifter72: "Quote:"

You still don't get it... The Federal Reserve doesn't prioritize dealing with individual citizens. But even if they did, what’s the actual issue? Interest is paid monthly and funneled back into the budget, which then gets redistributed or handed off to banks. Those banks distribute it among their employees and managers, leaving whatever is left for the shareholders—who just go out and buy more Mercedes-Benzes. Then, some executive from Mercedes-Benz heads down to Florida for a vacation, and we end up footing the bill with those ridiculous $3 fees for trash that isn't even worth fifty cents to manufacture. With that money, we might actually manage to pay back the principal and interest to the bank for that Ford we plan on buying once the season is over. The real problem arises if that German executive decides to move his operations to Turkey because it's cheaper and more profitable there; meanwhile, we're stuck here trying to drive a new Ford.
I am glad to see you have evolved your thinking. You hit the nail on the head: you must have something of value to offer BEFORE you attempt to leverage credit. If you don't have assets, do not take out loans. Your "brilliant" idea was originally just to distribute non-creditworthy money so everyone could go out and buy a Ford, while providing absolutely nothing in return. That is simply communism. And believe me, it has failed everywhere.

rustydrifter72: "The current economic trajectory remains deeply concerning. While some analysts suggest we are approaching a period of stability, I believe we are actually witnessing the arrival of a Trojan horse within our fiscal policy. We cannot simply ignore the underlying volatility."

Banks only turn a profit when they lend money, not when they sit on it. I agree that this cycle can’t continue indefinitely, but that isn't because of the banks themselves—it's because you eventually run out of reliable borrowers. If you have one segment of the population that is responsible and saves money (by choosing to forgo certain luxuries) while another segment spends recklessly, banks will inevitably start extending credit to low-quality debtors. We have already established the fact: banks make their money by deploying capital, not by accumulating it. In the past, it was so easy in America that you could practically walk into a branch, show them a single piece of paper stating your income, and walk out with a mortgage. However, this represents a fundamental "bug" in capitalism, which is currently being patched through moderate inflation. This mechanism effectively ensures that someone who simply saves diligently over fifty years will see their purchasing power eroded, while the borrower ends up paying interest on a principal that is effectively shrinking in real value.

rustydrifter72: "Quote:"

It doesn't necessarily have to be about suffering; it should be about lowering costs or boosting productivity. China struggles with incredibly low productivity, but they offset that with dirt-cheap labor and people working themselves to death. Taking out loans just to maintain a lifestyle is absolutely destructive. If those credits were being used to build new farms or factories, that would be a completely different story. Globalization is a massive win for developing nations like China and India. Initially, the West benefited by "exploiting" their inexpensive labor, but that allowed these countries to acquire the necessary expertise and technology, ensuring they come out on top in the long run. Through sheer hard work and manufacturing, they are steadily raising their standard of living while the West’s begins to decline. Globalization levels the playing field between nations. It is fundamentally positive for the human race, regardless of how much we in the West dislike having to sacrifice our own comforts.

There are plenty of real-world examples if you bother to study communist history. You can print out as much non-credit money as you want and implement all the price controls you like... and you'll successfully drive the economy down to the level of North Korea or Cuba. But hey, if that's what people want, be my guest...

☕

Look, I'm not going to go back and forth on every single one of these baseless counterarguments you guys are throwing out. I just have one specific task for you to handle:

It's called https://sites.google.com/site/financ...attredirects=0.

Basically, if you click that link, there's an XLS spreadsheet there listing several entities and the country. There isn't any mention of imports, exports, or banks. I'd just like you to download it and try adjusting the transactions—they're all double-entry, by the way—so that if you can show the government sitting at zero while every other entity turns a profit indefinitely, then you've actually proven your theory.

You'll see that if the government is at zero, then the government needs losers in order to have winners. But that can't go on forever, because losers aren't a permanent or infinite source of profit. Right?

See, people would lose their economics degrees over this simple task because nobody ever thought to check if the whole thing was actually true. It’s not some dogma. That spreadsheet has been online since the spring of 2010 and not a single genius has managed to prove long-term monetary profitability for a state using that model. We even have unpaid labor happening right now. Is that not enough proof that your logic is just as unsustainable as the profit shown in that XLS file.

Take a look at this bill regarding the introduction of non-credit money in the USA proposed by Dennis Kuchinich: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-6550

Stay smart and stay alive.

Maria Thomas48 said:☕

Look, I'm not going to go back and forth on every single one of these baseless counterarguments you guys are throwing out. I just have one specific task for you to handle:

It's called https://sites.google.com/site/financ...attredirects=0.

Basically, if you click that link, there's an XLS spreadsheet there listing several entities and the country. There isn't any mention of imports, exports, or banks. I'd just like you to download it and try adjusting the transactions—they're all double-entry, by the way—so that if you can show the government sitting at zero while every other entity turns a profit indefinitely, then you've actually proven your theory.

You'll see that if the government is at zero, then the government needs losers in order to have winners. But that can't go on forever, because losers aren't a permanent or infinite source of profit. Right?

See, people would lose their economics degrees over this simple task because nobody ever thought to check if the whole thing was actually true. It’s not some dogma. That spreadsheet has been online since the spring of 2010 and not a single genius has managed to prove long-term monetary profitability for a state using that model. We even have unpaid labor happening right now. Is that not enough proof that your logic is just as unsustainable as the profit shown in that XLS file.

Take a look at this bill regarding the introduction of non-credit money in the USA proposed by Dennis Kuchinich: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-6550

Stay smart and stay alive.

And what can I say to this besides repeating what markotros.a said: there is nothing worse than a stubborn fool. 🙏 It is impossible for every single entity to be profitable; saying that is as nonsensical as saying everyone should get straight A's in school. A company's profit is simply what remains after payroll, reinvestment, and all other expenses. If a company breaks even while still investing and paying its employees regularly, that is a success. If it loses money one year, it either restructures or fails the next—and that’s how it works. That is the essence of capitalism: the best survive the harsh competition. If everyone were making a profit simultaneously, profit itself wouldn't exist! It would imply that everyone received more goods and services than they exchanged, or that aliens dropped extra supplies into the economy. You have essentially invented a perpetual motion machine. Bravo...

Quincy:

I don't really have much to say about that. It's just one of those things. Not my thing. I tend to stay away from that kind of content. It's fine if other people like it, I guess. Just not for me. Anyway, moving on. Maria Thomas48 says: What else is there to say besides echoing what Mark Rothra? Honestly, you can't get much higher than a fool, except maybe for the stubborn ones. 🙏 Not every business needs to turn a profit every single second. That’s just silly. It’s like saying every student in an American classroom has to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA to be considered successful. A company's profit is really just whatever is left over after you handle payroll, reinvestment, and all those other overhead costs. If a firm breaks even—basically operating at zero—but they’re still paying their employees on time and investing back into the business, that’s actually doing fine. If they lose money one year, maybe they restructure, or maybe they go under the next year, and that's also just part of the process. That is simply how capitalism works. The strongest players survive the intense competition in the US market. Honestly, if every single entity were turning a profit simultaneously, profit wouldn't even exist as a concept. For that to happen, everyone would have to be producing more goods and services than they consume, or some aliens would have to be dumping extra resources into our economy. You've basically just invented a perpetual motion machine. Nice try though.

I'm not trying to get you guys to give up on proving the impossible. I just want you to realize that the actual truth is right there, laid out plain and simple by the math of any system that isn't constantly being pumped with fresh capital.

It’s always nice to hear people say that not everyone can be successful. It sounds fair. But if we're being honest, if you aren't succeeding, you should be working from zero, not working from a deficit. A loss shouldn't be an endless well for someone else to get rich off of. It should just be a temporary thing that happens when things fall apart. You can see this clearly if you just look at an Excel spreadsheet. In the real world, though, they hide it behind loans. They just call it growth in loan placements.

The data shows there's just no way for everyone to save even a single dollar a day. If they tried, the government would have to take on an extra $1.44 billion in debt every year just to cover the population—which isn't really "saving" anything anyway, since the national debt already dwarfs any potential savings. And honestly, that number doesn't change based on whether people are working 8-hour shifts or 16-hour shifts. It’s impossible under these conditions, regardless of how much effort you put in. So, this proves that calling Americans lazy is just nonsense. When imports equal exports, or when we're importing more than we export, you can work yourselves to death and it won't show up in your wallet by the end of the year. The money for all that labor simply won't exist. You can't link our productivity to how hard we work; it's actually tied to how poorly the money is regulated within the system. When imports exceed exports, the state tries to use its trade surplus as a source of funding on the importer's account. That's not a solution. Another country can't just compensate for that kind of deficit, and it only pushes them faster toward massive debt.

This whole discovery is pretty wild. It actually gets my blood pumping because you can clearly see all the cracks in our current system. And the fix—well, one of the possible solutions that's already floating around online—is coming from someone who isn't even an economist.

The whole forest of questions starts as an extension of the monetary issue. It all points toward a kind of economic enslavement through the banking system's debt creation process. And the first question is: Why are we just letting this happen? It’s worth asking whose interests actually come first in this country. We talk about changing the laws, but then what? We just wait around. I don't get why there's this hesitation to face the consequences of standing up for ourselves. We have a right to not be economically exploited, plain and simple. Just because they're doing it to everyone else doesn't make it okay for them to do it to us. By what authority? Any agreement that causes harm should be voided, and it can be. You have to fight for your rights. You really do. Nobody wants to connect the dots between that era of economic slavery and how things actually look right now in our economy, our society, and our financial systems. It’s all there if you look. Everyone just ignores the link.

The single best thing you can do for your own education is just watching videos. It sounds simple, maybe too simple, but it really works. You get to see things happen in real time. It sticks better than reading some dry textbook from a library. Just sitting there, watching someone explain how things work... it changes everything. It’s probably the most effective way to actually learn something useful. The Money Masters. That’s what they call them. It’s an interesting label, really. People talk about these financial gurus like they have some kind of secret map to wealth, but it feels more like a collective myth sometimes. You see them everywhere on social media or in those flashy seminars in Chicago. They make these very bold, very flat claims about how you can just flip a switch and change your entire life. It’s quite a lot to take in. I find myself wondering if there is actually any substance behind the titles, or if it's just a way to package basic economic principles into something that sounds more mystical than it actually is. It’s just an observation. (Subtitles in English). Once you dig into the history of how American bankers have been exploited—looking at the Fed, the central banking systems, and all that drama—and see how those issues were actually handled, you'll realize that the mathematical proofs people throw around are just a tiny fraction of the actual truth. We need a total overhaul of the monetary and banking system, and we need it yesterday. There’s really no point in just sitting around buying more time. Every single hour, we’re racking up more than a million dollars in new, useless debt that we honestly will never be able to pay back.

Stay smart and stay safe.

Maria Thomas48 said:Quincy:

I don't really have much to say about that. It's just one of those things. Not my thing. I tend to stay away from that kind of content. It's fine if other people like it, I guess. Just not for me. Anyway, moving on. Maria Thomas48 says: What else is there to say besides echoing what Mark Rothra? Honestly, you can't get much higher than a fool, except maybe for the stubborn ones. 🙏 Not every business needs to turn a profit every single second. That’s just silly. It’s like saying every student in an American classroom has to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA to be considered successful. A company's profit is really just whatever is left over after you handle payroll, reinvestment, and all those other overhead costs. If a firm breaks even—basically operating at zero—but they’re still paying their employees on time and investing back into the business, that’s actually doing fine. If they lose money one year, maybe they restructure, or maybe they go under the next year, and that's also just part of the process. That is simply how capitalism works. The strongest players survive the intense competition in the US market. Honestly, if every single entity were turning a profit simultaneously, profit wouldn't even exist as a concept. For that to happen, everyone would have to be producing more goods and services than they consume, or some aliens would have to be dumping extra resources into our economy. You've basically just invented a perpetual motion machine. Nice try though.

I'm not trying to get you guys to give up on proving the impossible. I just want you to realize that the actual truth is right there, laid out plain and simple by the math of any system that isn't constantly being pumped with fresh capital.

It’s always nice to hear people say that not everyone can be successful. It sounds fair. But if we're being honest, if you aren't succeeding, you should be working from zero, not working from a deficit. A loss shouldn't be an endless well for someone else to get rich off of. It should just be a temporary thing that happens when things fall apart. You can see this clearly if you just look at an Excel spreadsheet. In the real world, though, they hide it behind loans. They just call it growth in loan placements.

The data shows there's just no way for everyone to save even a single dollar a day. If they tried, the government would have to take on an extra $1.44 billion in debt every year just to cover the population—which isn't really "saving" anything anyway, since the national debt already dwarfs any potential savings. And honestly, that number doesn't change based on whether people are working 8-hour shifts or 16-hour shifts. It’s impossible under these conditions, regardless of how much effort you put in. So, this proves that calling Americans lazy is just nonsense. When imports equal exports, or when we're importing more than we export, you can work yourselves to death and it won't show up in your wallet by the end of the year. The money for all that labor simply won't exist. You can't link our productivity to how hard we work; it's actually tied to how poorly the money is regulated within the system. When imports exceed exports, the state tries to use its trade surplus as a source of funding on the importer's account. That's not a solution. Another country can't just compensate for that kind of deficit, and it only pushes them faster toward massive debt.

This whole discovery is pretty wild. It actually gets my blood pumping because you can clearly see all the cracks in our current system. And the fix—well, one of the possible solutions that's already floating around online—is coming from someone who isn't even an economist.

The whole forest of questions starts as an extension of the monetary issue. It all points toward a kind of economic enslavement through the banking system's debt creation process. And the first question is: Why are we just letting this happen? It’s worth asking whose interests actually come first in this country. We talk about changing the laws, but then what? We just wait around. I don't get why there's this hesitation to face the consequences of standing up for ourselves. We have a right to not be economically exploited, plain and simple. Just because they're doing it to everyone else doesn't make it okay for them to do it to us. By what authority? Any agreement that causes harm should be voided, and it can be. You have to fight for your rights. You really do. Nobody wants to connect the dots between that era of economic slavery and how things actually look right now in our economy, our society, and our financial systems. It’s all there if you look. Everyone just ignores the link.

The single best thing you can do for your own education is just watching videos. It sounds simple, maybe too simple, but it really works. You get to see things happen in real time. It sticks better than reading some dry textbook from a library. Just sitting there, watching someone explain how things work... it changes everything. It’s probably the most effective way to actually learn something useful. The Money Masters. That’s what they call them. It’s an interesting label, really. People talk about these financial gurus like they have some kind of secret map to wealth, but it feels more like a collective myth sometimes. You see them everywhere on social media or in those flashy seminars in Chicago. They make these very bold, very flat claims about how you can just flip a switch and change your entire life. It’s quite a lot to take in. I find myself wondering if there is actually any substance behind the titles, or if it's just a way to package basic economic principles into something that sounds more mystical than it actually is. It’s just an observation. (Subtitles in English). Once you dig into the history of how American bankers have been exploited—looking at the Fed, the central banking systems, and all that drama—and see how those issues were actually handled, you'll realize that the mathematical proofs people throw around are just a tiny fraction of the actual truth. We need a total overhaul of the monetary and banking system, and we need it yesterday. There’s really no point in just sitting around buying more time. Every single hour, we’re racking up more than a million dollars in new, useless debt that we honestly will never be able to pay back.

Stay smart and stay safe.

I’m not looking for a debate here, but I definitely agree on the need for reform.
I can’t tell if you’re conflating actual value with money. Money is just a proxy for value; pumping more cash into the system doesn't fix anything. Every time you expand the money supply, you're just diluting it. Your argument about productivity and services holds weight—that's where growth should come from. Without getting into how capital flows through different asset classes to fuel speculation, you'll find it nearly impossible to pull that liquidity back once service and product demand drops. Instead, the system will just force you to keep pumping, feeding the illusion that everything revolves around cash flow, which is false. That’s why GDP means nothing to me; it can be artificially inflated through debt. You can't fake real productivity. To me, the answer is obvious: we don't need this credit system where money is conjured out of thin air via computer keystrokes. We need real money with a fixed supply. A stable quantity prevents the deception of borrowing from the future, which is exactly what printing money does. Lending should only be backed by real money and actual stores of value—no steroids... to use a sports metaphor.
I dislike this whole non-credit-based money concept for several reasons.
But we are in complete agreement that the current credit system, with its massive scale of debt and constant money printing, is essentially robbing us.
Just some thoughts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't really have much to say about this one. Just sitting here thinking about things. It’s fine. Everything is just fine. kaže:
...

I know I can be a bit much sometimes. I tend to ramble. But I just really like showing people that things aren't always what they seem on the surface. I have this need to prove it. To show the actual reality of a situation.

The whole idea that pumping more money into the system is just an invitation for inflation... it feels like such a common talking point. People say it all the time, but honestly, I don't think it's entirely accurate. It really comes down to the timeframe involved and how much actual labor goes into creating new value. I mean, you hear people trying to explain how credit can actually be paid back—even though if you look at the math, it doesn't seem to add up. But there’s a way to justify credit-based money when you consider the total pool of savings, or basically the accumulated profit, that builds up after a certain period of production and work. It's about what's actually being produced in the end.

People who work hard and manage to save money—which is just how life works for anyone being smart about their finances—end up building up this growing pile of profit. They don't have to reinvest it all; they can just let it sit there and accumulate. It makes you wonder. Does that mean everyone else would have to constantly sell off their assets just to keep pace because they can't replicate that same level of growth? They can't. It’s simple math. These people with high profitability simply have lower expenses than they do income. When you have a situation where the total sum of money stays constant like that, it leads straight to deflation, recession, and full-blown economic crises. It's just the way it plays out.

If you just balance the budget deficit by injecting exactly enough cash to cover what people and corporations actually pocketed in profit, you won't mess up the equilibrium between money supply and goods. It’s pretty straightforward. Besides, all that hard work put in created actual new value. Essentially, the money used for their turnover was already accounted for through that increased productivity.

Everything makes sense if the work is actually productive. If you're just trying to squeeze a profit out of doing next to nothing, then that new money isn't really worth much. It’s either worth very little or it's worth nothing at all.

The whole idea of running an unprofitable business in this country just doesn't make sense anymore. It’s becoming obsolete. If productive work actually generates real value, then that work should be rewarded with actual money. There are tangible things out there on the market—values created through genuine labor—and you can buy them. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.

There’s always this lingering fear hanging around, isn't there? People worry that if we actually achieve high employment and everyone starts making a decent living, inflation will just spiral out of control because suddenly everyone has cash in their pockets. But you have to look at the mechanics of it. For people to earn that money, they have to put in actual, honest work. That effort translates directly into new value—new goods being produced or services being provided. So, as more people get jobs, the supply of products and services scales up right along with the money. You can reach near-full employment without everything blowing up, because the supply side keeps pace. It's just how it works.

Where do you put extra cash? And honestly, is it even "extra" if it's just sitting there? I mean, if you're looking at what gets released every year... $1000 If we look at potential earnings per capita, we’re talking about maybe $18,000 over a whole career. That’s for forty years of work. Does that sound like a fortune to anyone? Not really. After four decades of grinding and saving, that's just... it's nothing. Now, if you factor in the 25% we retirees hold, theoretically, everyone could have something closer to $72,000 sitting in a pension fund. That feels a bit more realistic, I guess. But even then, that only covers about 100 months of retirement. That’s eight years. Just eight. If we started printing more credit money now, maybe by the time forty years pass, people could actually start contributing more from their own savings. The thing people always seem to forget is that over forty years, you can generate a massive amount of value. Eventually, that money will eventually balance out with whatever goods are actually on the market. It works out. It has to.

The money supply can be scaled back, but honestly, any kind of tinkering with those numbers is basically just asking for a crisis. It’s all right there if you look at how banks manage their liquidity through interest rates—too high and things fall apart. You could theoretically set a specific adjustment, maybe something like 3.5% to 5% of the national money supply annually, but that shouldn't be left to chance. It needs to be handled by actual experts. And more importantly, these people need to face serious criminal and financial consequences if they screw up. They should be held personally accountable for their mistakes.

Fiat money has value, sure, but it isn't naturally convertible between different countries. It would be ideal if you could just take your cash and buy things abroad without any hassle, but honestly, the whole process of proving a currency is actually exchangeable is a massive headache. It’s a complicated mess. Because of that, I think bartering goods is actually the most logical way to go. That way, one nation doesn't end up getting rich at the expense of another. And look, if someone doesn't want to trade anything through bartering, then they clearly have everything they need already. If you can produce everything yourself and stay completely self-sufficient, you don't really need the barter system anyway.

Trump’s approach basically tackles the trade deficit head-on, which stops all that constant draining of cash from the country. If you ask me, it’s the smartest way to handle international trade. Sure, resource shortages could mess things up, but honestly, you see the exact same issue when people are just out there buying stuff with cash. The only real difference here is that the nation ends up trading more goods for the ones they actually lack. It’s pretty clear that in this scenario, there isn't some easy fix like just taking out more loans—because you really shouldn't do that. Instead, the move is to ramp up production of the specific goods needed for trade. That might lead to some temporary shortages on the market, but it won't lead to the citizens being stuck in economic slavery. That’s a huge distinction to make. An economy can run into hiccups, but it shouldn't fall into the kind of impossible, unsolvable mess we're dealing with right now.

Bless the smart ones.

What you’re suggesting about these trade deals is simply unrealistic. Who exactly is supposed to be making these deals?
An importer of bananas can't exactly sacrifice lives when they don't even have the resources to begin with.
And who, exactly, is handling the banana imports?
There has to be some sort of mechanism, a medium, that bridges those two values and connects the producer to the consumer.
The core issue isn't money itself; it's the fabrication of currency and the interest charged on that imaginary money.

Robert Vaughn10 said:What you’re suggesting about these trade deals is simply unrealistic. Who exactly is supposed to be making these deals?
An importer of bananas can't exactly sacrifice lives when they don't even have the resources to begin with.
And who, exactly, is handling the banana imports?
There has to be some sort of mechanism, a medium, that bridges those two values and connects the producer to the consumer.
The core issue isn't money itself; it's the fabrication of currency and the interest charged on that imaginary money.

The core problem is money and the balance of payments deficit. It’s basic math: if one nation runs a surplus, others must run a deficit. If a country can't cover that deficit with its own funds, it can't just borrow to bridge the gap either. Taking out credit just means you end up owing even more than you originally lacked. This is what people usually call living beyond your means.

With bartering, there's no such thing as spending unearned money.

Is there a better way to handle trade without piling on debt? Maybe a non-credit based currency at the state level specifically for international commerce. Developing nations could receive more of it, which would allow developed countries to sell their products and maintain a surplus in their balance of payments without creating a deficit elsewhere—since the money was essentially a gift. It sounds like science fiction, but it could work.

Maria Thomas48 said:The core problem is money and the balance of payments deficit. It’s basic math: if one nation runs a surplus, others must run a deficit. If a country can't cover that deficit with its own funds, it can't just borrow to bridge the gap either. Taking out credit just means you end up owing even more than you originally lacked. This is what people usually call living beyond your means.

With bartering, there's no such thing as spending unearned money.

Is there a better way to handle trade without piling on debt? Maybe a non-credit based currency at the state level specifically for international commerce. Developing nations could receive more of it, which would allow developed countries to sell their products and maintain a surplus in their balance of payments without creating a deficit elsewhere—since the money was essentially a gift. It sounds like science fiction, but it could work.

Your argument assumes we're stuck in this current credit system where money is basically conjured out of thin air. That's fair.
But consider if gold were the primary medium. A universal currency where everything stays positive and debt disappears.
It’s either gold, silver, or nothing—cash and carry. Trading commodities is a better idea, but it's still impractical because it isn't the government trading; it's individual entities within and between nations.
Keep in mind, just having a printing press is a fast track to ruin.
So, I hate to burst your bubble, but despite your good intentions, people are inherently flawed, making your plan practically impossible. A system needs to function automatically rather than relying on a specific group of people to hold all the cards... people eventually get greedy, and then it's back to square one.
It would be better to just wipe the debt clean and start from scratch—at least we wouldn't be starting in the red. Precious metals could make that happen, and then we could slowly work our way toward a higher standard of living.
One step at a time. 😉

Help, help, help...
Could someone please walk me through a concrete example? I’m trying to wrap my head around what actually falls under short-term debt on a balance sheet—specifically, what other costs are we looking at besides just the interest rate, the collateral requirements, and those various dependent fees...

Thanks a million

I don't know. I really don't know. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels here, honestly. Everyone is talking at once, but nobody is actually saying anything that sticks. It’s all just noise. Just constant, loud noise. I was thinking about it earlier while I was grabbing coffee, and it hit me—we're looking for patterns where there probably aren't any. Or maybe there are, and we're just too distracted to see them. It's hard to tell. Everything feels a bit disjointed lately. Anyway. That's just my thought. Nothing much to it. kaže:
Your argument only works if you're looking at a credit system where money is basically conjured out of thin air, which is exactly what we have here.
Just imagine if gold actually functioned as money. Like, real money. A universal currency where everything finally balances out and stays positive. There wouldn't be any debt. No more endless cycles of owing people things. It would just work.
It’s pretty simple, really. You either have gold, you have silver, or you don't have any goods at all. It’s strictly cash and carry. I mean, sure, moving actual commodities around sounds better on paper, but let's be real—it's just not feasible. Governments aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting here; it's all private entities trading amongst themselves, both domestically and across borders. The state isn't running the show when it comes to the actual flow of goods.
Just remember, the mere existence of a printing press is a one-way ticket to disaster.

Your position still just plays right into a system built entirely on credit. If you try to implement commodity-based measures using things that are fundamentally finite, you're going to run into massive walls down the road. It’s pretty simple math. Based on data from back in '96, two-thirds of the world's gold is held by The Illuminati, specifically through the IMF and the World Bank. How exactly do you plan on getting your hands on that much gold? If you let them control the money supply, then nobody—not even the people—actually owns their own wealth. They only issue currency for the purpose of lending it out. That's just how it works.

Look, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, and I know you mean well, but people are just inherently flawed. Your whole plan is basically impossible to pull off in the real world. A system like this needs to run on autopilot. You can't just hand over control to some group of people and assume they'll stay honest. Eventually, someone is going to get greedy or corrupt, and then everything just falls apart. It’s just how it goes.

Doesn't it bother you that the entire system currently hinges on bank interest rates decided by just a handful of people? Everyone wants their cut, everyone wants to turn a profit, but if there isn't actual, real money flowing in from somewhere to cover all those gains, then what exactly is happening? It feels like a loop.

The idea that debt just magically disappears? It’s completely baseless. There isn't any real argument to support it. Debt is basically just a lever used to exert pressure and maintain control over people. The reason is simple: you can't just pay it back with physical things or labor in nature. You have to settle it using money that hasn't even been printed yet—those interest rates. Of course, there is the option of paying in gold. Personally, I think any creditor would be more than happy to accept gold as repayment. That way, the lenders get to stockpile up on gold—using it as collateral for issuing credit—while the rest of us just get worked harder and harder.

The whole concept of paying for things with money you don't actually have—just leaning on credit to bridge the gap—it’s basically a fast track to debt slavery. It's how they get you.

I have a plan to fix the internal financial system. You have to balance that commodity exchange deficit through active measures, otherwise, you're stuck. You just can't compensate for a debt in that kind of trade. If we implemented a non-credit-based system across all states, the pressure to export to other countries just to stay prosperous would vanish. It would make balancing those commodity exchange debts a whole lot easier.

The solution lies in moving toward a single, unified currency or, at the very least, making sure all non-credit currencies held against agreed-upon issuances are fully convertible.

The only thing you really need to grasp here is that when you see a massive currency outflow like this, it actually opens the door to scaling back the issuance of non-credible money in the next cycle. Since there's less cash circulating within the domestic system, the math changes. Essentially, that outflow has to stay lower than the total amount of money being issued. If it crosses that line, the government could find itself completely stranded—literally left high and dry without any foundation to support issuing new currency. At the end of the day, it’s just better if we keep the money flow with foreign markets properly balanced.

Quincy:

Maria Thomas48 Asks: Your perspective still aligns perfectly with a system built entirely on credit. If you attempt to implement commodity-based measures using finite resources, you’re headed for massive trouble down the road. According to 1996 data, two-thirds of the world's gold is held by The Money Masters, specifically through the IMF and the World Bank. How exactly do you plan on getting your hands on that much gold? If you give them the authority to print money, you won't even have any money left of your own. And let's be honest—they only issue currency for the purpose of lending it out.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. In the system I’m advocating for, debt doesn't even exist—gold isn't someone else's liability. We should have been thinking ahead instead of running massive deficits and turning a blind eye to corruption. Now, we're just past the point of easy fixes. And frankly, why would you or I be any more honest than the people currently in power? If we aren't, then the next generation will just fall into the same traps and return to business as usual. You have to solve the problem at the root rather than assuming we're somehow morally superior to the people stealing from us right now. We basically robbed ourselves by allowing corruption to take hold, and this is the bill coming due. My family saw it clearly back in the early 90s, right after the elections: the foundation was fundamentally broken. This isn't just an economic issue; it goes much deeper. That is where the solution lies. Period.

Quincy:

Doesn't it bother you that the entire system currently hinges on bank interest rates decided by a tiny handful of people? Everyone wants a piece of the action and a slice of the profit, but nobody seems concerned that there isn't any actual money coming in to cover it all. The idea that debt will simply vanish is baseless. Debt is nothing more than a lever used to exert pressure and maintain control. It works because you can't settle it with physical goods; you have to pay it back using money that hasn't even been printed yet—interest. The only logical alternative is paying in gold. Honestly, I suspect any creditor would jump at the chance to be paid in gold. It allows lenders to hoard the metal as collateral for issuing more credit, while the rest of us just get worked harder. The mere concept of spending money you don't actually have—relying on credit to bridge the gap—is nothing more than a fast track to modern-day debt slavery. My plan addresses the internal financial framework directly. You have to balance that trade deficit through active intervention; you simply cannot offset a trade debt like that. By implementing a non-credit-based system across all nations, the desperate need to export just to stay afloat disappears. It would make managing those trade imbalances significantly easier. The solution lies in implementing a unified currency or converting all non-credit currencies held against agreed-upon issuances. Here is the only thing worth noting: a massive currency outflow suggests we might actually have the opportunity to scale back the issuance of non-credible money, given that the local money supply has shrunk. For this to work, the outflow must remain lower than the rate of money creation. If we cross that line, the government could find itself completely stranded, lacking any foundation to issue new currency. Essentially, we need to ensure the flow of capital with foreign markets remains balanced.

Debt gets erased by inflation. If that money printing goes unchecked, debt simply vanishes in the middle of hyperinflation. Just look at the US budget deficit compared to the rate of new money issuance. It’s mathematically impossible for the dollar to avoid hyperinflation at this level of spending and insolvency—unless they slash consumption, in which case we just deal with massive inflation instead. As the dollar collapses, everything else follows. Real wealth shifts straight into gold. The illusion of debt disappears.😉
If we aren't capable of living modestly and rebuilding the entire system from the ground up through actual labor and production, then we’ve essentially earned our own subjugation. Constant whining about who is to blame won't change anything. We need to adapt—live more simply and stay out of debt—rather than just reinventing the exact same broken system that someone will inevitably exploit again in 50 or 100 years, just like they have for the last two decades.
People are inherently corruptible, and we need to get ahead of that decisively.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Quincy:

Maria Thomas48 Asks: Your perspective still aligns perfectly with a system built entirely on credit. If you attempt to implement commodity-based measures using finite resources, you’re headed for massive trouble down the road. According to 1996 data, two-thirds of the world's gold is held by The Money Masters, specifically through the IMF and the World Bank. How exactly do you plan on getting your hands on that much gold? If you give them the authority to print money, you won't even have any money left of your own. And let's be honest—they only issue currency for the purpose of lending it out.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. In the system I’m advocating for, debt doesn't even exist—gold isn't someone else's liability. We should have been thinking ahead instead of running massive deficits and turning a blind eye to corruption. Now, we're just past the point of easy fixes. And frankly, why would you or I be any more honest than the people currently in power? If we aren't, then the next generation will just fall into the same traps and return to business as usual. You have to solve the problem at the root rather than assuming we're somehow morally superior to the people stealing from us right now. We basically robbed ourselves by allowing corruption to take hold, and this is the bill coming due. My family saw it clearly back in the early 90s, right after the elections: the foundation was fundamentally broken. This isn't just an economic issue; it goes much deeper. That is where the solution lies. Period.

Quincy:

Doesn't it bother you that the entire system currently hinges on bank interest rates decided by a tiny handful of people? Everyone wants a piece of the action and a slice of the profit, but nobody seems concerned that there isn't any actual money coming in to cover it all. The idea that debt will simply vanish is baseless. Debt is nothing more than a lever used to exert pressure and maintain control. It works because you can't settle it with physical goods; you have to pay it back using money that hasn't even been printed yet—interest. The only logical alternative is paying in gold. Honestly, I suspect any creditor would jump at the chance to be paid in gold. It allows lenders to hoard the metal as collateral for issuing more credit, while the rest of us just get worked harder. The mere concept of spending money you don't actually have—relying on credit to bridge the gap—is nothing more than a fast track to modern-day debt slavery. My plan addresses the internal financial framework directly. You have to balance that trade deficit through active intervention; you simply cannot offset a trade debt like that. By implementing a non-credit-based system across all nations, the desperate need to export just to stay afloat disappears. It would make managing those trade imbalances significantly easier. The solution lies in implementing a unified currency or converting all non-credit currencies held against agreed-upon issuances. Here is the only thing worth noting: a massive currency outflow suggests we might actually have the opportunity to scale back the issuance of non-credible money, given that the local money supply has shrunk. For this to work, the outflow must remain lower than the rate of money creation. If we cross that line, the government could find itself completely stranded, lacking any foundation to issue new currency. Essentially, we need to ensure the flow of capital with foreign markets remains balanced.

Debt gets erased by inflation. If that money printing goes unchecked, debt simply vanishes in the middle of hyperinflation. Just look at the US budget deficit compared to the rate of new money issuance. It’s mathematically impossible for the dollar to avoid hyperinflation at this level of spending and insolvency—unless they slash consumption, in which case we just deal with massive inflation instead. As the dollar collapses, everything else follows. Real wealth shifts straight into gold. The illusion of debt disappears.😉
If we aren't capable of living modestly and rebuilding the entire system from the ground up through actual labor and production, then we’ve essentially earned our own subjugation. Constant whining about who is to blame won't change anything. We need to adapt—live more simply and stay out of debt—rather than just reinventing the exact same broken system that someone will inevitably exploit again in 50 or 100 years, just like they have for the last two decades.
People are inherently corruptible, and we need to get ahead of that decisively.

Paying with gold? How do you even take out a loan then? In gold? The bank still just keeps a piece of paper saying you owe them money! What's the difference? It just shows up when you take the credit. There's no actual difference.

Debt gets wiped out by inflation, and if that issuance is totally out of control, the debt completely disappears during hyperinflation. Just look at the US numbers regarding budget deficits and new money issuance, and you'll see it's impossible for the dollar not to hyperinflate given this level of spending and default, or at least inflate heavily if spending slows down. Everything falls along with the dollar, and the transfer of real wealth moves into gold. The illusion of debt vanishes.😉
If we aren't capable of living modestly and restarting the system from scratch through actual work and production, then we've basically earned our slavery. Constantly whining about whose fault it is won't help anything.

First off, that theory about wiping out debt through hyperinflation doesn't work in a system based entirely on credit. That worked when the state issued the money. When a credit institution does it, inflation doesn't make the debt disappear. I've posted proof of this several times before.
Wealth transfer can't move into gold because then gold prices would hit the stratosphere, and interestingly enough, the IMF and the World Bank hold massive gold reserves. Isn't that just market manipulation?!
Who is even talking about someone else being to blame? If you don't feel like a slave, that's subjective. Mathematics shows the relationship is purely one of servitude. There is no way to escape economic slavery except by changing the laws that establish it.

We need to adapt, live more modestly, and stay out of debt, rather than inventing essentially the same system that someone will just abuse again in 50 or 100 years, just like they've abused it for the last 20 years.
People are inherently flawed, and we need to get ahead of that decisively.

I don't even understand that sentence. Who is supposed to adapt to what? How do slaves adapt to a life of slavery? By surviving under those conditions, or by gaining freedom?
The system needs to be reformed, and it should be written into the Constitution that economic slavery is prohibited. Economic sciences need to start dealing with actual facts instead of miseducating students. In fact, there should be legal penalties for miseducation (indoctrination), just like there are for false advertising. There is no difference, and the entire school should face the penalty.

What is even the point of teaching macroeconomics at a university if the professor can't explain capital accumulation and social development within the current system—you know, the whole import-export balance thing. If they can't explain it at a national level, there's no way they can explain it on a global scale, right?

It’s the same deal with these professors; they never explain how a country actually pays back its debt when 95% of the money comes from credit. In a scenario where imports and exports are balanced, trying to pay off a budget deficit is basically an impossible mission.

So what, are we supposed to just stay quiet and play along? Adjust to what? To a massive scam? And the idea that we shouldn't point out that things don't add up... well, just keep your mouth shut. This isn't some con being pulled on naive amateurs or street hustlers; it's being pulled on all of us. Just because some people are swimming a little better than others doesn't change the truth.

That whole mindset—that you shouldn't look for flaws in the system but just adapt to them—is exactly why economics has turned into such a dogmatic science. Economics is one of the most studied majors out there, yet the result in terms of actually solving problems is zero. Honestly, this should be a wake-up call for academic economics. But they aren't reacting. Some professors even set the example themselves, showing how to "earn" extra through corruption and just going along with the system.

I don't know who you guys are trying to impress, and honestly, you probably don't even know yourselves. The biggest question is this: if every single resident in this country were your own relative, would you still defend a system that ultimately turns them into poor people? People who will work their entire lives just to get a pathetic pension and feel lucky they don't have to scavenge for recyclables just to eat? Or people who, when they get sick, will be praying they don't end up in a hospital they can't afford? Or maybe you just don't care about your relatives, because man is a wolf to man, and the happiest guy is the one whose neighbor's cow dies.

I can use math to completely expose how useless the current monetary and banking system is for creating prosperity for the majority—those who actually want to work. I can prove that the only ones profiting are the big international bankers. And this situation exists globally. Yet, instead of this proof opening your eyes, it just turns you into an opponent who sees my text as some sort of revolution or threat to your position. Where is your logic?

1. You cannot disprove the math (the proof that state profit comes from the budget deficit).

2. An XLS spreadsheet showing state profit is also irrefutable.

3. The proof that infinite debt is created based on inflation is irrefutable.

4. It is clear by law that in an isolated nation, real global capital accumulation is impossible (unless it's at the expense of even more debt).

All of this applies to a system based entirely on issuing money as credit.

Are you still claiming this system is good and the best for us Americans?

Is it just because we don't know of anything better, or because we refuse to look for it?

The very history of how this system was created gives you more than enough answers as to why it's broken. It originated from bankers, not from the government!

I really can't wrap my head around how people can ignore mathematics and refuse to believe their own eyes. How many years can we keep talking about this while paying $1.3 million—money we'll never see—per hour? Are we truly that wealthy and selfless, or do we just lack common sense?

Stay smart and stay alive.

Just a few points, as it seems we aren't on the same page.
Who said anything about taking out a loan? You save money; then you have the capacity to borrow easily.
And if a loan is taken, it should be repaid in gold or hard currency. I prefer precious metals—there’s no room for fraud there. That way, the lender will think twice about who they lend to and why. I don't know where this idea comes from that transfers can't be made in gold if prices skyrocket. Just because you dislike the idea doesn't mean it isn't reality. Yes, manipulation happens; one must adapt to it.
Regarding slavery: if you insist everything boils down to mathematics, you're wrong. Humans are driven by subjective impulses and assessments. Let's look at that math.
That math shows that the US imports twice as much as it exports. That is a roadmap to bankruptcy. If we are importing twice as much, we have to ask why. The answer lies in people's desire to live comfortably. It isn't about how they do it; it's just that they want comfort and a certain sense of "dignity." And if you'll permit my subjective impression, you seem to be heading in that same direction.
Printing money is an evil. You, or those who follow you, claim to be the "good ones" who won't print. Sure. Very convincing.
As for your claim that debt cannot be wiped out by inflation or hyperinflation...
You are looking at the big picture, which is fine, but you're ignoring the dynamics. Inflation is a process, and it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Once again, I point to the USA. Look at the numbers; you'll see that hyperinflation is already becoming almost inevitable. It only takes a massive influx of cash into a single asset class—say, food or energy—for overall confidence in the currency to vanish. It is perfectly logical that money flows into those specific classes because food and energy are necessities. When credit is abundant, prices in almost every other asset class tend to drop. Capital flows toward survival essentials... leading to inflation and hyperinflation. This $600 billion is intended specifically to offset all the value "killed" by loan repayments.
Eventually, when you no longer want a mere representative of value, paper becomes what it truly is.
On the other hand, one must acknowledge the fact that the world developed quite well under the gold standard until 1971.
The existence of wars was merely a reflection of human greed. Today, wars aren't fought on battlefields; everything is handled remotely. The core issue remains human greed; only the effects and models have changed. That is the problem we need to solve. We must address the root cause rather than clinging to an obsolete model of paper money and printing presses where it isn't Jerry doing the printing, but Mark.
As much desire for comfort leads to slavery, as much modesty leads to freedom.
My ancestors lived this way, and we will continue to do so.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Just a few points, as it seems we aren't on the same page.
Who said anything about taking out a loan? You save money; then you have the capacity to borrow easily.
And if a loan is taken, it should be repaid in gold or hard currency. I prefer precious metals—there’s no room for fraud there. That way, the lender will think twice about who they lend to and why. I don't know where this idea comes from that transfers can't be made in gold if prices skyrocket. Just because you dislike the idea doesn't mean it isn't reality. Yes, manipulation happens; one must adapt to it.
Regarding slavery: if you insist everything boils down to mathematics, you're wrong. Humans are driven by subjective impulses and assessments. Let's look at that math.
That math shows that the US imports twice as much as it exports. That is a roadmap to bankruptcy. If we are importing twice as much, we have to ask why. The answer lies in people's desire to live comfortably. It isn't about how they do it; it's just that they want comfort and a certain sense of "dignity." And if you'll permit my subjective impression, you seem to be heading in that same direction.
Printing money is an evil. You, or those who follow you, claim to be the "good ones" who won't print. Sure. Very convincing.
As for your claim that debt cannot be wiped out by inflation or hyperinflation...
You are looking at the big picture, which is fine, but you're ignoring the dynamics. Inflation is a process, and it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Once again, I point to the USA. Look at the numbers; you'll see that hyperinflation is already becoming almost inevitable. It only takes a massive influx of cash into a single asset class—say, food or energy—for overall confidence in the currency to vanish. It is perfectly logical that money flows into those specific classes because food and energy are necessities. When credit is abundant, prices in almost every other asset class tend to drop. Capital flows toward survival essentials... leading to inflation and hyperinflation. This $600 billion is intended specifically to offset all the value "killed" by loan repayments.
Eventually, when you no longer want a mere representative of value, paper becomes what it truly is.
On the other hand, one must acknowledge the fact that the world developed quite well under the gold standard until 1971.
The existence of wars was merely a reflection of human greed. Today, wars aren't fought on battlefields; everything is handled remotely. The core issue remains human greed; only the effects and models have changed. That is the problem we need to solve. We must address the root cause rather than clinging to an obsolete model of paper money and printing presses where it isn't Jerry doing the printing, but Mark.
As much desire for comfort leads to slavery, as much modesty leads to freedom.
My ancestors lived this way, and we will continue to do so.

Well, I think I made it clear that there aren't actually any conditions for accumulating capital, or saving. About 86% of savings is just minimums pulled from someone else's debt, and generally speaking, isn't about 95% of all money in the world currently consist of credit? There's just no solution for paying interest on almost all leased money. It's basically a pyramid scheme where the source is the central banks. Even in England right now, they're struggling because their debt outweighs the actual money in the country.

I don't really get why everyone is insisting on moving everything into precious metals. Replacing currency with gold doesn't change the math of a national budget at all. Just look at the numbers. Currency doesn't change the bottom line. Doesn't matter if it's the Dollar, the Euro, or the Swiss Franc, or gold. Based on how the math works, the government would have to create extra money every single year just to maintain global profit within the state. The alternative is an economic disaster caused by a total lack of cash (for those actually trying to make a living). So the question is whether it's easier to print colored paper and guarantee its value, or hunt for gold and stuff it into a vault just to issue more paper backed by that gold. Gold only makes sense if the currency isn't stable. If the currency stays stable, gold is redundant. And stability in a currency comes from adding a certain amount of supply. If someone suddenly figured out how to turn lead into gold, gold would become worthless because there would be way more than needed to cover the newly created value from labor.

In the documentary "The Money Masters," they say it quite clearly at the very end: Advocating for a return to the gold standard is a mistake. The government needs to issue its own money, which effectively cuts banks out of the money issuance process.

A nation that doesn't issue its own (real) money has no control over its own economic destiny. The decision belongs to whoever issues the money—basically, whoever controls most of the money. Since 80% of the money in America is credit, I assume it's pretty obvious who is calling the shots on the economic situation. What kind of adjustment can a country like this make to become a prosperous nation? That kind of adjustment doesn't exist. The people running the economy already know exactly when the opportunity arises to invest in one thing or another. It's like playing the lottery against people who always win the jackpot. You might pick up a few crumbs, but the rest of the people globally just lose.

Stay smart and stay alive.

Look, you’re stubbornly refusing to accept that people are inherently corruptible.
They break eventually. That’s the root of the issue. It’s the only issue.
If I can't make you understand that, there's no point in talking.
Forget this entire system and its statistics; it's finished. It's already dead; we're just waiting for the execution. Deflation isn't a logical solution because it would trigger a revolution. Inflation or hyperinflation, however, wipes out debt—which will be a disaster for many—while capital migrates into precious metals, resetting all values to positive territory.
The goal should be simple: pull the rug out from under the speculators. As long as there is even a tiny loophole in the law, speculators will find a way to exploit it and poison the system. That must be prevented at all costs. I suggest a maximum cap of 20%—making it difficult enough to discourage them—but apparently, we have to learn the hard way. Good intentions don't matter much if you aren't actually competent. Once people realize "easy money" is gone and start saving again, things will balance out. People will finally value creation over consuming nothingness fueled by debt.
And then what? If everyone holds gold and silver, or if you're paid in real currency? The priority is eliminating interest and this current structure, because that's where the real money is manufactured and drained. Once a true standard is established, no matter how harsh the transition, you'll come out on top. But globally, we will pay for this through a temporary drop in living standards. We have to, because we allowed corruption to creep in. Some saw that coming back in the late '70s... so a decline in the standard of living is now inevitable. There's no avoiding it.
My advice: adapt to reality instead of trying to bend the world to fit your desires, no matter how noble they may be.
So, one last time: people are corruptible and prone to decay. You, me, anyone—nobody is perfect.
But the system must function flawlessly—if it's ever going to function at all—because it only takes one failure to ruin the work of nine others. We shouldn't be offering similar short-term fixes for a long-term problem. Once a certain level of stability is achieved through sheer effort, the pace should slow down and move into maintenance mode.
It is fundamentally wrong for anyone to print money—be it a bank, the government, or any other entity.
Forget the deficit.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Look, you’re stubbornly refusing to accept that people are inherently corruptible.
They break eventually. That’s the root of the issue. It’s the only issue.
If I can't make you understand that, there's no point in talking.
Forget this entire system and its statistics; it's finished. It's already dead; we're just waiting for the execution. Deflation isn't a logical solution because it would trigger a revolution. Inflation or hyperinflation, however, wipes out debt—which will be a disaster for many—while capital migrates into precious metals, resetting all values to positive territory.
The goal should be simple: pull the rug out from under the speculators. As long as there is even a tiny loophole in the law, speculators will find a way to exploit it and poison the system. That must be prevented at all costs. I suggest a maximum cap of 20%—making it difficult enough to discourage them—but apparently, we have to learn the hard way. Good intentions don't matter much if you aren't actually competent. Once people realize "easy money" is gone and start saving again, things will balance out. People will finally value creation over consuming nothingness fueled by debt.
And then what? If everyone holds gold and silver, or if you're paid in real currency? The priority is eliminating interest and this current structure, because that's where the real money is manufactured and drained. Once a true standard is established, no matter how harsh the transition, you'll come out on top. But globally, we will pay for this through a temporary drop in living standards. We have to, because we allowed corruption to creep in. Some saw that coming back in the late '70s... so a decline in the standard of living is now inevitable. There's no avoiding it.
My advice: adapt to reality instead of trying to bend the world to fit your desires, no matter how noble they may be.
So, one last time: people are corruptible and prone to decay. You, me, anyone—nobody is perfect.
But the system must function flawlessly—if it's ever going to function at all—because it only takes one failure to ruin the work of nine others. We shouldn't be offering similar short-term fixes for a long-term problem. Once a certain level of stability is achieved through sheer effort, the pace should slow down and move into maintenance mode.
It is fundamentally wrong for anyone to print money—be it a bank, the government, or any other entity.
Forget the deficit.

There are just so many words scattered across all these different sentences that I can't even begin to wrap my head around what the actual point of the reply is. 😕

Maria Thomas48 said:There are just so many words scattered across all these different sentences that I can't even begin to wrap my head around what the actual point of the reply is. 😕

And what else should a sentence be made of if not words?
If you can't follow an answer that you deem "too dense" when it's actually incredibly simple, then we're done here.

Robert Vaughn10 said:And what else should a sentence be made of if not words?
If you can't follow an answer that you deem "too dense" when it's actually incredibly simple, then we're done here.

I honestly feel like you guys are just trying to kill me with a massive wave of stupidity.

Maria Thomas48 said:I honestly feel like you guys are just trying to kill me with a massive wave of stupidity.

Are you actually serious?
Ha, ha.
Corruption is stupidity, but clearly, you haven't caught on yet.