#141 ·
From a letter to a friend:
" They try to convince us that by simply taking out more loans, we’ll somehow have enough cash to cover both the principal and the interest. But there's no guarantee that new money will actually show up to pay those interest rates, or better yet, to create any kind of actual value for the community—real, newly created wealth. Nobody talks about that part. It isn't treated as an issue, and nobody seems worried because everyone just immediately jumps to inflation. Inflation becomes this big bogeyman that people accept any other solution to avoid. They just tell us, "We can't do this because of inflation, so this is our only option." And if we follow that logic, everything will be fine. But the government was the one who ordered the inflation in the first place. So, they claim they were being irresponsible with printing money and that it was wrong, but they weren't smart enough to realize they needed new liquidity. Our economists are absolute geniuses. Now, seeing as there clearly isn't enough money, Rohatinski is releasing $2.9 billion to be pumped back into the system through loans. Just look at the profit hidden in that over a single year with 6% interest. That's $174 million in interest alone. Or $133 per person. This means that in one year, banks will attempt to pull $174 million in real cash out of the economy based solely on this. And they'll do it every year. If that's true, it means banks collect $14 billion every year just from that 6% interest. Based on my math against a $333 billion GDP, that works out to 4%. Considering solid stocks like AT&T yield about 7%, and realistically capital should bring at least 5% annual profit, it feels like almost all of us are working just to pay off interest. Theoretically, this is happening only because there isn't enough money to cover the interest payments. Instead, they should probably inject, say, an extra 3% of a $118 billion budget—about $3.5 billion—through a primary offering ($482 million). That would be roughly 1.2% of existing savings, which isn't a sum large enough to trigger hyperinflation. It's about 1% of the GDP. Doing this would allow for a gain/saving per person of $292.
However, if bank savings sit at $290 billion, which is about $38 billion, and our national debt is even higher, it practically means we already know the debt can't be repaid since our savings are less than what we owe. Plus, every year, based on 6% interest on a $250 billion principal, banks are claiming $2 billion. Banks have operating costs too, though I don't know exactly how much.
We have inflation at 3.5%, and it didn't come from printing money? Who is drinking and who is paying? Where does this extra 3.5% of money—$10 billion, or 8.5% of the budget—come from every year? It comes from raising wages. But how can you raise wages if you aren't earning more? And how can you earn more if there is no new money? You have to speed up the exchange of goods (and shorten payment terms). So, things are happening in reverse and nobody is raising an eyebrow. The government steadily calculates that our average wage is 3.5% higher every year, and it's been that way for years. No problem, right? But if at some point everything doubles in price, an equivalent amount of money must appear in circulation (without using loans) to cover it. If you do that through credit, you have to be an absolute idiot, because then you're just paying interest on an artificial inflationary flow. In reality, there wasn't even inflation, because that would mean money lost value. The money still holds its value; it's just that an excess of credit appeared, which we mistakenly thought was inflationary money we could use to boost earnings. Then, with higher earnings, we took out even bigger loans. And so on.
If you take 1.035 and raise it to the 18th power (years), you get 1.85. Translated to 100% of savings, you have an additional 85% in credit, while the bank keeps a 15% mandatory reserve. There is 85% more money. Wages have risen that much, while the banks are rubbing their hands together with $2 billion in annual collections. Logically, it would make sense if they actually printed money, but then the banks wouldn't have their eternal cash cows. However, the ceiling has been reached. There is no room for new credit. Rohatinski is buying time by allowing for an even smaller mandatory reserve. Yet, the state still demands 3.5% more in contributions this year. It's interesting—even after significant salary cuts at various companies, the results look just like they did during the best years. Just when I thought average wages would start falling, and therefore contributions would drop too.
If you leverage 1,035 against 20, you end up with 1.99. Essentially, Rohatinski would have to allow for a mandatory 1% reserve, otherwise, banks won't have any foundation to back any kind of credit within a two-year window. It’s interesting, really. That was back in 2012. If you walked into any bank back then asking for money, they’d probably just hand you a number, tell you to go home, and say they'll notify you when you can actually withdraw your funds. So, I’d suggest moving all your cash out of the bank and into something secure—like a bank vault or converting it to gold."
Take Greece, for example. Their famous double-digit budget deficit proves that the old saying "as broke as Greece" is making a comeback. And the EU is acting surprised that they didn't see the bankruptcy coming. Maybe the old adage holds true: the EU will fall apart before America ever joins the union.
To get a full picture of this total chaos, I took the time to read the ECB statutes. I noticed something important: the latest version isn't even a text file; it's a scanned document. That means search engines can't index it. After a little extra digging, I managed to find an earlier version on a web archive site, and I found some fascinating data. The ECB exclusively finances banks and corporations. Of course, they finance national central banks too. However, there is absolutely no mention of a primary issuance mechanism. That’s strange, considering there is a clause regarding a founding capital of XXXX million euros. It might be time to ask ourselves: what came first, money or credit? This statute suggests that money existed first, and now only credit exists. The exception is interest on deposited funds, which is far too small to cover the demand for new money (for reasons I mentioned earlier).
I did some rough math, and it looks like Americans need about 2 billion dollars in liquidity per year just to cover interest payments to banks. That means the credits being discussed might only plug the hole until late summer, assuming you factor in the time needed to secure and spend the funds.
By the way, anyone using cards for cashless payments should probably ask themselves what the bank's commission actually is. It’s typically 5%, if I’m not mistaken. If you lost 5% just trying to withdraw cash from an ATM, people would call it a peasant revolt. The same thing would happen if you had to pay 5% extra just to buy something; banks are basically holding merchants hostage by imposing a percentage fee on every transaction. Even if you think you aren't losing anything personally, we are being depleted globally. Final consumption accounts for anywhere from 30% to 60% of GDP. If everything were paid via card, those bank fees would represent 1.5% to 3% of the entire US GDP. And while that might not sound like much, we can certainly afford it. We’re talking about 5 to 10 billion dollars. To put it bluntly, a 60 million dollar robbery is a catastrophe, but we can easily stomach it when it's done legally. On $333 card payments, the bank earns 50. If you spend your entire paycheck of $2333 through a card, the bank has made $117 off you. I honestly wonder why they even charge annual membership fees. I guess it helps maintain the illusion that they aren't profiting. So, stick to cash. The "robbery" involved in cash deposits for businesses is significantly lower, around 0.4% of the total. That leaves the company with 4.6% of their gross turnover. In my opinion, any honest customer wants their supplier to stay afloat.
Anyway, my plan to alert the media and other key players—TV, radio, newspapers, the government, unions, environmentalists, etc.—has met with absolutely zero response. I wasn't expecting a standing ovation, obviously, but total silence is genuinely concerning. It implies one of two things: either most people have no clue what the actual truth is, or the people responsible for informing and leading us aren't reacting to the facts because... well, several things could be happening:
Personally, I think it's the last one. Especially when you look at the scenes from the anti-globalist protests.
Even though I am one of the few willing to waste time pointing out the problems dragging us toward ruin, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I've even heard it said that the goal of education is indoctrination. So, it makes sense that as a non-economist, I’ve managed to prove the system's deception more effectively than a degreed economist. In any closed system, treating costs and revenues as taboo subjects in economic studies is standard practice. It fits perfectly with the recent summer programs held at the University of Chicago.
People will probably rally to save five little trees before they ever try to fix a fraudulent monetary system. It’s just because those trees get cut down in an hour, while banks bleed you dry for years. And when they hit you, you take it personally instead of seeing the bigger picture. You always end up thinking if you had been luckier, things might have gone differently.
Success on a global scale is impossible. Here’s a simple way to look at it. Imagine a small state with a million people where everyone takes out a loan from $333. For every billion borrowed, there needs to be a hundred million returned. That brings the total to 1100 million. What’s the final balance? Everyone ends up with $33 less. Now everyone is short on cash again, so they all take out more loans. This time they’re larger by $33, totaling $367. You see where this goes. But it can't go on forever. Even roulette players have a system that works, provided they can keep raising their bets indefinitely. But that doesn't work here. The bank always wins. They just had to make sure there was no primary issuance of money (just look at the Federal Reserve statutes and the laws governing the Fed).
Over at http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/, I’ve laid out the mathematical proof regarding the deficit, along with copies of letters sent to Rohatinski and President Obama. I wrote to Obama because he once said: "We must not be afraid, we must not be silent, and we must not turn our heads," "It is courage that overcomes injustice and creates a better society," and "In the fight for justice, I will never tire." Well, now we wait to see if those were just empty words or not.
Regards to everyone
" They try to convince us that by simply taking out more loans, we’ll somehow have enough cash to cover both the principal and the interest. But there's no guarantee that new money will actually show up to pay those interest rates, or better yet, to create any kind of actual value for the community—real, newly created wealth. Nobody talks about that part. It isn't treated as an issue, and nobody seems worried because everyone just immediately jumps to inflation. Inflation becomes this big bogeyman that people accept any other solution to avoid. They just tell us, "We can't do this because of inflation, so this is our only option." And if we follow that logic, everything will be fine. But the government was the one who ordered the inflation in the first place. So, they claim they were being irresponsible with printing money and that it was wrong, but they weren't smart enough to realize they needed new liquidity. Our economists are absolute geniuses. Now, seeing as there clearly isn't enough money, Rohatinski is releasing $2.9 billion to be pumped back into the system through loans. Just look at the profit hidden in that over a single year with 6% interest. That's $174 million in interest alone. Or $133 per person. This means that in one year, banks will attempt to pull $174 million in real cash out of the economy based solely on this. And they'll do it every year. If that's true, it means banks collect $14 billion every year just from that 6% interest. Based on my math against a $333 billion GDP, that works out to 4%. Considering solid stocks like AT&T yield about 7%, and realistically capital should bring at least 5% annual profit, it feels like almost all of us are working just to pay off interest. Theoretically, this is happening only because there isn't enough money to cover the interest payments. Instead, they should probably inject, say, an extra 3% of a $118 billion budget—about $3.5 billion—through a primary offering ($482 million). That would be roughly 1.2% of existing savings, which isn't a sum large enough to trigger hyperinflation. It's about 1% of the GDP. Doing this would allow for a gain/saving per person of $292.
However, if bank savings sit at $290 billion, which is about $38 billion, and our national debt is even higher, it practically means we already know the debt can't be repaid since our savings are less than what we owe. Plus, every year, based on 6% interest on a $250 billion principal, banks are claiming $2 billion. Banks have operating costs too, though I don't know exactly how much.
We have inflation at 3.5%, and it didn't come from printing money? Who is drinking and who is paying? Where does this extra 3.5% of money—$10 billion, or 8.5% of the budget—come from every year? It comes from raising wages. But how can you raise wages if you aren't earning more? And how can you earn more if there is no new money? You have to speed up the exchange of goods (and shorten payment terms). So, things are happening in reverse and nobody is raising an eyebrow. The government steadily calculates that our average wage is 3.5% higher every year, and it's been that way for years. No problem, right? But if at some point everything doubles in price, an equivalent amount of money must appear in circulation (without using loans) to cover it. If you do that through credit, you have to be an absolute idiot, because then you're just paying interest on an artificial inflationary flow. In reality, there wasn't even inflation, because that would mean money lost value. The money still holds its value; it's just that an excess of credit appeared, which we mistakenly thought was inflationary money we could use to boost earnings. Then, with higher earnings, we took out even bigger loans. And so on.
If you take 1.035 and raise it to the 18th power (years), you get 1.85. Translated to 100% of savings, you have an additional 85% in credit, while the bank keeps a 15% mandatory reserve. There is 85% more money. Wages have risen that much, while the banks are rubbing their hands together with $2 billion in annual collections. Logically, it would make sense if they actually printed money, but then the banks wouldn't have their eternal cash cows. However, the ceiling has been reached. There is no room for new credit. Rohatinski is buying time by allowing for an even smaller mandatory reserve. Yet, the state still demands 3.5% more in contributions this year. It's interesting—even after significant salary cuts at various companies, the results look just like they did during the best years. Just when I thought average wages would start falling, and therefore contributions would drop too.
If you leverage 1,035 against 20, you end up with 1.99. Essentially, Rohatinski would have to allow for a mandatory 1% reserve, otherwise, banks won't have any foundation to back any kind of credit within a two-year window. It’s interesting, really. That was back in 2012. If you walked into any bank back then asking for money, they’d probably just hand you a number, tell you to go home, and say they'll notify you when you can actually withdraw your funds. So, I’d suggest moving all your cash out of the bank and into something secure—like a bank vault or converting it to gold."
Take Greece, for example. Their famous double-digit budget deficit proves that the old saying "as broke as Greece" is making a comeback. And the EU is acting surprised that they didn't see the bankruptcy coming. Maybe the old adage holds true: the EU will fall apart before America ever joins the union.
To get a full picture of this total chaos, I took the time to read the ECB statutes. I noticed something important: the latest version isn't even a text file; it's a scanned document. That means search engines can't index it. After a little extra digging, I managed to find an earlier version on a web archive site, and I found some fascinating data. The ECB exclusively finances banks and corporations. Of course, they finance national central banks too. However, there is absolutely no mention of a primary issuance mechanism. That’s strange, considering there is a clause regarding a founding capital of XXXX million euros. It might be time to ask ourselves: what came first, money or credit? This statute suggests that money existed first, and now only credit exists. The exception is interest on deposited funds, which is far too small to cover the demand for new money (for reasons I mentioned earlier).
I did some rough math, and it looks like Americans need about 2 billion dollars in liquidity per year just to cover interest payments to banks. That means the credits being discussed might only plug the hole until late summer, assuming you factor in the time needed to secure and spend the funds.
By the way, anyone using cards for cashless payments should probably ask themselves what the bank's commission actually is. It’s typically 5%, if I’m not mistaken. If you lost 5% just trying to withdraw cash from an ATM, people would call it a peasant revolt. The same thing would happen if you had to pay 5% extra just to buy something; banks are basically holding merchants hostage by imposing a percentage fee on every transaction. Even if you think you aren't losing anything personally, we are being depleted globally. Final consumption accounts for anywhere from 30% to 60% of GDP. If everything were paid via card, those bank fees would represent 1.5% to 3% of the entire US GDP. And while that might not sound like much, we can certainly afford it. We’re talking about 5 to 10 billion dollars. To put it bluntly, a 60 million dollar robbery is a catastrophe, but we can easily stomach it when it's done legally. On $333 card payments, the bank earns 50. If you spend your entire paycheck of $2333 through a card, the bank has made $117 off you. I honestly wonder why they even charge annual membership fees. I guess it helps maintain the illusion that they aren't profiting. So, stick to cash. The "robbery" involved in cash deposits for businesses is significantly lower, around 0.4% of the total. That leaves the company with 4.6% of their gross turnover. In my opinion, any honest customer wants their supplier to stay afloat.
Anyway, my plan to alert the media and other key players—TV, radio, newspapers, the government, unions, environmentalists, etc.—has met with absolutely zero response. I wasn't expecting a standing ovation, obviously, but total silence is genuinely concerning. It implies one of two things: either most people have no clue what the actual truth is, or the people responsible for informing and leading us aren't reacting to the facts because... well, several things could be happening:
- The leaders know exactly what's going on, but nobody wants to take action.
- Or, the situation is so unbelievable that everyone assumes it's just nonsense.
- Or, everyone is terrified to publish the truth for fear of sparking a massive uprising.
Personally, I think it's the last one. Especially when you look at the scenes from the anti-globalist protests.
Even though I am one of the few willing to waste time pointing out the problems dragging us toward ruin, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I've even heard it said that the goal of education is indoctrination. So, it makes sense that as a non-economist, I’ve managed to prove the system's deception more effectively than a degreed economist. In any closed system, treating costs and revenues as taboo subjects in economic studies is standard practice. It fits perfectly with the recent summer programs held at the University of Chicago.
People will probably rally to save five little trees before they ever try to fix a fraudulent monetary system. It’s just because those trees get cut down in an hour, while banks bleed you dry for years. And when they hit you, you take it personally instead of seeing the bigger picture. You always end up thinking if you had been luckier, things might have gone differently.
Success on a global scale is impossible. Here’s a simple way to look at it. Imagine a small state with a million people where everyone takes out a loan from $333. For every billion borrowed, there needs to be a hundred million returned. That brings the total to 1100 million. What’s the final balance? Everyone ends up with $33 less. Now everyone is short on cash again, so they all take out more loans. This time they’re larger by $33, totaling $367. You see where this goes. But it can't go on forever. Even roulette players have a system that works, provided they can keep raising their bets indefinitely. But that doesn't work here. The bank always wins. They just had to make sure there was no primary issuance of money (just look at the Federal Reserve statutes and the laws governing the Fed).
Over at http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/, I’ve laid out the mathematical proof regarding the deficit, along with copies of letters sent to Rohatinski and President Obama. I wrote to Obama because he once said: "We must not be afraid, we must not be silent, and we must not turn our heads," "It is courage that overcomes injustice and creates a better society," and "In the fight for justice, I will never tire." Well, now we wait to see if those were just empty words or not.
Regards to everyone