The Financial System and Money Supply

Look here...

To begin with, inflation is not some bolt from the blue that appears unexpectedly out of nowhere (though it seems you are convinced that 😉)
Inflation has precisely defined causes that remain constant: an increase in the money supply within the system.
Depending on average behavior—whether people are saving or spending—we experience either high or low price inflation. Furthermore, shifts in attitude manifest in prices. A nation that was once heavily inclined toward saving creates inflationary pressure the moment its citizens begin spending without thought.

Additionally, bank interest rates are not added to inflation; that is a terrible amateur mistake made by someone who lacks the fundamentals.
Inflation is the figure that shows how much less our money is worth. Interest is the figure that shows how much the bank charges per year on borrowed funds. If you view them together, regarding borrowed money, the bank realistically loses the inflation amount and gains the interest. Therefore, after one year of repayment, that money is worth less due to inflation and more due to interest. In terms of bank profit, you subtract inflation from the interest.

Regarding where interest actually comes from in the American system: a person takes out a loan, uses that loan to produce something, sells it abroad for US dollars, converts those dollars back into local currency, and pays the bank back in that currency. The bank collects the currency to pay taxes to the government, and the government injects that money back into the system through wages and other disbursements. If we are productive, the amount of currency in the system remains stable while we accumulate US dollars or other currencies. If we are unproductive, currency leaves the system and there is a "shortage of money." Although the money isn't actually missing, people simply aren't working; the money flows out, and no one is making an effort to return it to the system. Printing new money will not solve this problem. It will only deepen it. Instead of stopping the outflow of money from the system, we will continue to export it because we mistakenly believe it exists. We will only find ourselves in greater trouble.

Printing money is a mistake.

The banking system is not a perpetual motion machine. Inflation is a tax on savings (which goes to the government, not the bank), and interest rates are competitive because our banking market is open.

You are truly mistaken. You have some useful ideas on your previous page, some unfeasible ones, and some useless ones, but it is obvious you lack the basic principles required to reach a correct conclusion.

What is the solution? First, everyone must realize that the only way out involves a complete overhaul of the financial system. Second, energy companies should be nationalized to stabilize fuel prices. I know asking for this seems irrational, given that we are draining our resources at a rate suggesting we will run dry in roughly 20 to 35 years unless we curb population growth and energy consumption.

You claim it is irrational to ask, yet you are asking for it yourself. 😉
A systemic change? Do you actually have any arguments to support that? Zero points.

Third. Corruption must be purged from the government apparatus, ideally using a Chinese-style method—execution against a wall. Any major bribery or price gouging intended for extra profit should be punished by expropriation of assets (referring to significant holdings). The number of officials and agencies needs to be streamlined so that maximum work is done with minimum personnel. Naturally, the laws must be structured to make this possible.

Bingo.

Fourth. A precise plan must be drawn up. Some might call it a five-year plan. Wages should be lowered to align with our actual GDP per capita. It is only logical that we cannot maintain wages higher than those of nations with greater per-capita productivity.

Why would I force private businesses to slash their employees' pay if they are doing well? That is the very foundation of competition. If everyone received identical salaries regardless of effort, we would end up like the old socialist states.

Fifth: Credit expansion must be scaled back according to projected profits. In other words, banks should not issue more credit than can generate enough profit during that period to cover repayments. There must be a strict limit on how much profit banks can extract; it must be significantly less than the total potential profit for that cycle.

The Federal Reserve defines that through mandatory bank reserves. I must admit, they have performed their duties quite effectively over the years. Unless you believe you could do better? 😉
The issue arose because banks were accumulating massive reserves simply to issue massive loans. During that era, everyone was working against the Federal Reserve. But that is a different matter entirely.

Sixth: All of this must be coordinated with other nations to ensure currency parity. What the USA proposes should serve as a universal program. This would achieve convertibility for every currency within the plan. Developing nations could then have convertible currencies, rather than just the major powers.

And how exactly do you intend to enforce that? With what army? 😉

Sixth: We must address the failures of globalization. It exploits one group of workers just to allow another group to be undercut by bargain-basement prices. This serves neither party. How can we fix this? International agreements are required. Ultimately, the government picks up the tab for everything. If a nation truly cares for its citizens, it will not permit the influx of cheap imports that could be produced profitably under our own domestic conditions. By allowing this, the state is effectively subsidizing foreign economies. We should first ensure prosperity within our own borders as a cohesive community. Perhaps a return to trade reciprocity would work. If you wish to export, you must import something of actual value rather than mere cheap goods.

The concept behind globalization is actually to eliminate exploitation. The goal is for labor in America to hold the same value as labor in China or elsewhere. While we haven't reached that point yet, we are slowly moving toward it. Eventually, this parity will increase.

Eighth: Entrepreneurial freedom should not be restricted unless it generates excessive profits that ultimately cover a budget deficit. Such excess devalues currency and triggers inflationary spirals. Anyone seeking extreme profit margins must either reinvest those funds optimally or reduce them from the outset. Of course, any proven laundering of excessive profits would be punished by expropriation.

Regarding this, I can only say you are delusional. Would you forbid entrepreneurs from generating profit? Would you stop cows from producing milk just in case there is too much milk in the system? Entrepreneurs exist to make a profit, and they pay taxes on that profit. Forbidding an entrepreneur from earning money is like forbidding a politician from lying. What kind of system did you grow up in?

Ninth: Greed for profit should be sanctioned through drastic measures. This means wholesalers, resellers, and middlemen must limit their margins to a specific percentage of the procurement cost (including real transportation costs).

Greed for profit, my dear friend, is perhaps the single most powerful driving force of the global economy. Ninety-nine percent of people start ventures and create things for the benefit of the entire world simply because they are incentivized by potential profit. They do it because many people will pay for it, allowing them to earn significantly. To forbid people from earning is to kill that drive. The result is stagnation. There is no more development, no more innovation, and no more effort.

What you are saying is exhausting. Truly. I have never seen so many unfounded, unverified, and illogical conclusions in one place. You would create something far worse than the worst socialism, which has repeatedly proven itself to be a failed system in practice. I honestly do not understand where you are getting this from.

Gregory Williams7 said:Look here...

To begin with, inflation is not some bolt from the blue that appears unexpectedly out of nowhere (though it seems you are convinced that 😉)
Inflation has precisely defined causes that remain constant: an increase in the money supply within the system.
Depending on average behavior—whether people are saving or spending—we experience either high or low price inflation. Furthermore, shifts in attitude manifest in prices. A nation that was once heavily inclined toward saving creates inflationary pressure the moment its citizens begin spending without thought.

Additionally, bank interest rates are not added to inflation; that is a terrible amateur mistake made by someone who lacks the fundamentals.
Inflation is the figure that shows how much less our money is worth. Interest is the figure that shows how much the bank charges per year on borrowed funds. If you view them together, regarding borrowed money, the bank realistically loses the inflation amount and gains the interest. Therefore, after one year of repayment, that money is worth less due to inflation and more due to interest. In terms of bank profit, you subtract inflation from the interest.

Regarding where interest actually comes from in the American system: a person takes out a loan, uses that loan to produce something, sells it abroad for US dollars, converts those dollars back into local currency, and pays the bank back in that currency. The bank collects the currency to pay taxes to the government, and the government injects that money back into the system through wages and other disbursements. If we are productive, the amount of currency in the system remains stable while we accumulate US dollars or other currencies. If we are unproductive, currency leaves the system and there is a "shortage of money." Although the money isn't actually missing, people simply aren't working; the money flows out, and no one is making an effort to return it to the system. Printing new money will not solve this problem. It will only deepen it. Instead of stopping the outflow of money from the system, we will continue to export it because we mistakenly believe it exists. We will only find ourselves in greater trouble.

Printing money is a mistake.

The banking system is not a perpetual motion machine. Inflation is a tax on savings (which goes to the government, not the bank), and interest rates are competitive because our banking market is open.

You are truly mistaken. You have some useful ideas on your previous page, some unfeasible ones, and some useless ones, but it is obvious you lack the basic principles required to reach a correct conclusion.

I’ve got some points here that pretty much nail exactly how things stand right now:

Under the Federal Reserve's actual mandate, they don't just print money out of thin air. It’s really about managing credit and issuing securities. That's how it works.

Money entering the money supply only comes from two places: credit and foreign investment. It's pretty straightforward. And just so we're clear, someone sitting on their savings doesn't remove that cash from the total money supply. It stays in the system.

There are plenty of reasons why inflation happens, but honestly, most of them aren't even worth debating. What actually matters is where the money comes from to cover that inflation—it’s the same logic you use when looking at how people turn a profit. You look at exports, foreign investment, or credit expansion. If you set aside the first two things here in the States, you're basically left with nothing but someone else's debt. And when that credit doesn't get paid back, you just end up with a massive pile of debt.

If you put money into an investment only to have it swallowed up by a massive spike in the money supply, you’ve basically thrown your cash down the drain. It's a total wash. The same logic applies to those bad loans that people can't pay back—they just end up sitting there, serving as nothing more than fuel to pump up inflation even further.

It seems like you’re just trying to downplay the results of that inflationary debt projection because they don't sit well with you. Honestly, everything is being done strictly by the book. I’ve gone through the key sections of the Federal Reserve Act myself. Just inflation alone has the potential to absolutely wreck us, driving the country into an endless cycle of debt if it's allowed to run unchecked within the credit system. That is simply the reality of the situation. That’s exactly why I reached out to Rohatinski. I wanted him to tell me straight up how much this inflation has already cost us in terms of debt and what the forecast looks like moving forward. I don't expect a straight answer, though. If he were to put anything in writing, it would basically confirm that our entire financial system—driven by this so-called "flexible monetary policy"—is nothing more than a total scam. It's unsustainable in the long run. It’s essentially just a banking perpetual motion machine designed to force financial subjugation and turn everyone into permanent debtors.

All four points are spot on. I mean, you can just keep spinning the truth into endless relativity forever if you really want to.

Regarding your attempt to dispute the points in the resolution, you honestly missed the mark on all your conclusions. You have to look at it this way: the federal budget, through its deficit, actually acts as an indirect source of revenue for the community.

Look, it’s pretty simple. You’re the one running the show in your family, the one footing the bill for everything. If you're the one providing that kind of support, what exactly is there to worry about? Nothing should bother you.

So, imagine this. Someone in your family tries to charge you twice for painting the house when they only actually did the job once. They’re basically asking for money for work that never happened. It's just... yeah. If you don't do the work, you shouldn't get the cash. Simple as that.
If Ivica decides he needs quick cash for some project and starts charging five times the usual rate for sweeping floors, he’s just devaluing everyone else's hard work. It really comes down to greed.
So, imagine this scenario. Your cousin Marko decides he’s going to start charging three times the normal rate just for firewood—you know, like some high-end energy provider or something. It’s just one of those things that happens.

And so on. I added some more stuff myself.

When you’re the one footing the entire bill, you start caring a lot more about how every single cent is spent and distributed. It matters. But looking at these arguments, it feels like they're all built on this weird theory that money just falls from the sky in endless amounts. Like there's no limit. If you assume money is infinite, then sure, you can just hike up wages indefinitely because, in that logic, there aren't any consequences. There's no catch.

Even if that money were just printed out of thin air, there has to be an equal amount of actual work backing it up from the previous period. That’s how it works. You don't trigger hyperinflation that way; instead, you're basically just incentivizing more labor and higher productivity. Making money without actually doing anything is the exact opposite—it's just pure extra profiteering. A typical mindset that leads straight to that trap is the whole "You can't pay me this little for such a small amount of work" attitude. In plain English, that translates to wanting the highest possible paycheck for the absolute minimum effort. Laziness also leads to hyperinflation. The costs are still there, but the actual results from the work just aren't.

Hey there

If a family member tries to charge you twice for painting a house when they only did the job once—and without actually doing any work—do they really deserve that money?
If your son Ivica decides to start charging five times the standard rate for sweeping streets just because he suddenly needs extra cash, what does that actually accomplish? It isn't just about the money. It devalues the hard work of everyone else in the community. Is that not simply greed?
What happens if your cousin Marko decides to triple the price of firewood? What if he starts charging three times more for energy resources?

He didn't complete the work, so you shouldn't pay him. Isn't that exactly why oversight exists?
I have a son, Stevica, who isn't quite as sharp as Ivica. However, he notices that Ivica earns a steady living without much effort. Soon enough, he will come to me and say, "Dad, I’m going to do the exact same job for a lower price." In textbooks, they call this competition.
Then there is my brother, Luka, who also owns a forest. He sees that he could turn a profit if he starts selling timber too. And just like that, we have more competition.

Do you even grasp the fundamental definition of competition?
Do you realize that socialism has failed?
Seriously, take a moment to reflect. I am not attempting to trivialize the situation; it is quite clear that you are self-taught and lack any formal education. This isn't an insult. It is simply a factual observation. Is it not like suffering from an illness, yet refusing to listen to a doctor because you believe you know better than the medical professionals?
You are mistaken. You are completely, profoundly wrong.

What you are suggesting would create a disastrous system. It would be even worse than socialism, where profit is essentially eliminated. Was he being punished?It would kill any hope for productivity or hard work. The principle is simple: you won't pay me a cent more than I can get away with doing, until someone else shows up willing to do more for the exact same wage. At that point, the first person ends up out on the street in total misery.

Think about this for a second. I have to head to a lecture now, but your premises are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is incredibly poor. You are intentionally ignoring the basic principles of market competition just to push your own theory regarding profit penalties. Good grief... I really shouldn't listen to everything posted here. 🙂

Gregory Williams7 said:

If a family member tries to charge you twice for painting a house when they only did the job once—and without actually doing any work—do they really deserve that money?
If your son Ivica decides to start charging five times the standard rate for sweeping streets just because he suddenly needs extra cash, what does that actually accomplish? It isn't just about the money. It devalues the hard work of everyone else in the community. Is that not simply greed?
What happens if your cousin Marko decides to triple the price of firewood? What if he starts charging three times more for energy resources?

He didn't complete the work, so you shouldn't pay him. Isn't that exactly why oversight exists?
I have a son, Stevica, who isn't quite as sharp as Ivica. However, he notices that Ivica earns a steady living without much effort. Soon enough, he will come to me and say, "Dad, I’m going to do the exact same job for a lower price." In textbooks, they call this competition.
Then there is my brother, Luka, who also owns a forest. He sees that he could turn a profit if he starts selling timber too. And just like that, we have more competition.

Do you even grasp the fundamental definition of competition?
Do you realize that socialism has failed?
Seriously, take a moment to reflect. I am not attempting to trivialize the situation; it is quite clear that you are self-taught and lack any formal education. This isn't an insult. It is simply a factual observation. Is it not like suffering from an illness, yet refusing to listen to a doctor because you believe you know better than the medical professionals?
You are mistaken. You are completely, profoundly wrong.

What you are suggesting would create a disastrous system. It would be even worse than socialism, where profit is essentially eliminated. Was he being punished?It would kill any hope for productivity or hard work. The principle is simple: you won't pay me a cent more than I can get away with doing, until someone else shows up willing to do more for the exact same wage. At that point, the first person ends up out on the street in total misery.

Think about this for a second. I have to head to a lecture now, but your premises are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is incredibly poor. You are intentionally ignoring the basic principles of market competition just to push your own theory regarding profit penalties. Good grief... I really shouldn't listen to everything posted here. 🙂

Here's an example of how competition can be a double-edged sword. You go to a farmers market and look at the price of lettuce. Everyone has it for $5.00. It's unlikely they all have the same supplier. Now, consider another idea. I know my lettuce is lower quality, but I still list my price right alongside the others. In doing so, I ruin those who believe they should charge more because they put in more effort. My lettuce was cheaper to produce and it's worse, but I'm preying on the customer's ignorance. From the outside, the lettuce looks the same. Meanwhile, a great producer goes under.

For instance, your brother Luka could sell you birch wood at a slightly lower price. What are you going to tell him? Pure greed. But he could do it. That's the law of the market.

Competition and earnings can run counter to each other. Take banks, for example. They don't really want to compete with each other because it's basically a monopoly. If one raises rates, the other might raise them too because they see a chance to grab even more clients. Then the first one sees there's still room to hike prices further. And so on. It has nothing to do with brains, it's all about greed. Everyone is wrong when a competitor—a serious predator—invests huge amounts of money just to squeeze a little extra cash out of a business.

Here is another example of "good competition." Higher education. Universities are independent and theoretically could raise tuition enough to balance supply and demand. A true economic endeavor. Turning a school into a profit-driven corporation is desirable if you want higher earnings. It's the same with the pharmaceutical industry. Drugs that work but can't be patented in every possible way get hidden away. They need to make as much money as possible, even if it's at the expense of treating people.

Or take Bill Gates. The man made a fortune. Do you think he's thinking about offering products at lower prices? No way. The shareholders would have him ousted immediately. Grab as much cash as you can while you can. There's the Federal Reserve to print more to cover new debt. And who's going to pay for it? Bill Gates doesn't really care.

So much for competition and achieving optimal profit.

We’ve reached the point where solutions from this whole mess... they start looking like socialist or communist ideas. Sure, but those ideas stem from trying to find a source of profit, which in this case is the federal budget deficit (specifically the version involving printing money). It is a democratic right to vote on whether someone's labor is valued more than others—basically, deciding if there should be a cap on wage ratios. Even now, the government does this by demanding pay cuts for corporate executives.

Supporting pay without actual work leads straight to ruin.

First, we have to agree on where a community's indirect profit actually comes from. People still don't want to admit that.
Second. We have to realize that the current financial system isn't a permanent fix because it creates massive debts out of thin air. Take inflation, for example. You're wrong to conclude that the state profits from inflation. That's only true when the government prints the money. Nowadays, it's the banks making the real money, and they make way more. You mentioned correctly that the bank didn't profit because inflation ate it up, but you forgot that the exact same bank provided the entire inflationary sum in the first place.

For instance, looking at the projection after 14 years, the situation is:

Money supply = 161.87%
Inflationary mass = 61.87%
Interest from previous periods: 28.41%
Current interest: 5.42%
Total debt = inflationary mass + previous interest + current interest = 95.70%

Now, if we assume the money has lost value by 1.6187 times and normalize the resulting debt, we get 59.12% of the normalized money supply.

In economic terms, I see the same 100% real value, plus interest on 59% of that value (the inflationary part and the interest). To put it in plain, almost folksy terms: it's like someone telling you that you owe seven of your monthly salaries and you have to pay interest on that throughout the year. You can't even pay back the principal because that money doesn't exist—it's just part of the inflationary money supply. It works out to about 42% of a monthly salary that needs to be spread over 12 months. Maybe that comparison isn't perfect, but it's close. Except that in 8 years, you have to double your payments, and in 15 years, you have to double them again.
After four of those doublings, you'll have to hand over your entire income just to cover the interest on the inflationary mass. Basically, all your earnings will go toward feeding inflation.

The projection shows that by 2018, the normalized money supply and the normalized debt from the inflationary mass will equalize. In economic language, the bank (or several banks) will hold such large claims (due to the growing principal) that they will exceed the entire money supply. For those who grasp this less easily, it means that by then, we will globally become debt slaves with no way out.
So, in just 22 years, with 3.5% inflation and 6% interest, we become debt slaves solely due to the impact of inflation. If we add constant imports, the profits of other entities, and extra borrowing, it means this will happen much sooner. This is exactly what happened in Greece. We are just following their lead.

The projection isn't a perfect picture of reality, of course, but it shows the direction things are heading (even if different numbers are playing the role).

Inflation within a credit-based financial system is a topic they don't even touch in economics classes.
The indirect sources of profit for a community within a credit system (or any system, really) aren't taught in college either.

Analyzing these issues gives you the answer: the system is flawed and unsustainable.

Anyone can think whatever they want about this, but reality is what proves it.

Scarcity is caused exclusively by the credit system and inflation. There is absolutely no foundation for continuous prosperity because bank interest eats everything we have.

You don't need to be an economist to see the link between the system and the crisis. Everyone in this system is in a crisis (with very rare exceptions).

If someone is studying economics, they should ask these red questions to a competent professor. I'm really curious to hear the answer. They wouldn't give me one.

Cheers

wearysailor71 said:Maria Thomas48, I tip my hat to you for putting in all that effort.🙏
You are clearly brilliant—your logical reasoning is quite something to behold.

In my humble opinion, things are looking bleak... the Government is getting stupider by the day,
while the common people are finally starting to wake up...http://hrsvijet.net/index.php?option...rstvo&Itemid=8

I'm worried—the outlook is grim... once the summer passes (after a failed season), the real chaos is going to hit.☕

Is there any better proof needed that democracy has to go? 😁

Maria Thomas48 said:To save everyone some trouble, I put together an Excel spreadsheet to figure out how much inflationary debt builds up if we want to maintain the same real money supply value over the years.

inflation: 3.50%

bank interest: 6.00%

principal: 100

Columns are:Year; Money Supply; Inflationary Mass; Interest Debt; Accrued Interest; Total Debt

0 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 = 1996.
1 103.50 3.50 0.00 0.21 3.71
2 107.12 7.12 0.21 0.44 7.77
3 110.87 10.87 0.65 0.69 12.21
4 114.75 14.75 1.34 1.19 17.28
5 118.77 18.77 2.53 1.28 22.57
6 122.93 22.93 3.81 1.60 28.34
7 127.23 27.23 5.41 1.96 34.60
8 131.68 31.68 7.37 2.34 41.39
9 136.29 36.29 9.71 2.76 48.76
10 141.06 41.06 12.47 3.21 56.74
11 146.00 46.00 15.68 3.70 65.38
12 151.11 51.11 19.38 4.23 74.72
13 156.40 56.40 23.61 4.80 84.81
14 161.87 61.87 28.41 5.42 95.70 = 2010.
15 167.53 67.53 33.83 6.08 107.45
16 173.40 73.40 39.91 6.80 120.11
17 179.47 79.47 46.71 7.57 133.75
18 185.75 85.75 54.28 8.40 148.43
19 192.25 92.25 62.68 9.30 164.23
20 198.98 98.98 71.98 10.26 181.22
21 205.94 105.94 82.24 11.29 199.47 = 2017.
22 213.15 113.15 93.53 12.40 219.08
23 220.61 113.49 105.93 13.17 232.58
24 228.33 128.33 119.10 14.85 262.27
25 236.32 136.32 133.94 16.22 286.48
26 244.60 144.60 150.16 17.69 312.44
27 253.16 153.16 167.84 19.26 340.26
28 262.02 162.02 187.10 20.95 370.07
29 271.19 171.19 208.05 22.75 401.99 = 2025.
30 280.68 180.68 230.80 24.69 436.17

Conclusion: total interest tends toward the limit of inflation plus bank interest (3.5 + 6 = 9.5) because the inflationary debt and interest debt hit the principal level after just 14 years. When you factor in the trade deficit on top of that, things look even worse.

A practical take on these numbers. With average inflation at 3.5% and borrowing interest at 6%, we have basically reached the point where the initial money supply equals the debt required to generate extra money for inflation this year. In 7 years, the debt will double, and in 15 years, it will be four times larger. And that is just looking at inflation within a strictly credit-based financial system. Even China won't be able to sustain this for long. I heard they are having issues with inflation. This explains why the USA doubles its debt to the Federal Reserve in periods shorter than 6 years and why the borrowing has accelerated. Standard inflation is a clear indicator, but what about those worsening debt parameters?

Does anyone have an economic explanation for this banking perpetual motion machine? Or are we all just being dense and couldn't see this sooner. Maybe we should have learned it in college.

Note that all the money used for inflation comes from someone else's loan—a loan that was essentially sunk just to increase the money supply (to maintain the same real value)—and that party hasn't paid the debt back.

Someone definitely does, though I doubt you'd actually want to hear it.

Maria Thomas48 said:Here's an example of how competition can be a double-edged sword. You go to a farmers market and look at the price of lettuce. Everyone has it for $5.00. It's unlikely they all have the same supplier. Now, consider another idea. I know my lettuce is lower quality, but I still list my price right alongside the others. In doing so, I ruin those who believe they should charge more because they put in more effort. My lettuce was cheaper to produce and it's worse, but I'm preying on the customer's ignorance. From the outside, the lettuce looks the same. Meanwhile, a great producer goes under.

For instance, your brother Luka could sell you birch wood at a slightly lower price. What are you going to tell him? Pure greed. But he could do it. That's the law of the market.

Competition and earnings can run counter to each other. Take banks, for example. They don't really want to compete with each other because it's basically a monopoly. If one raises rates, the other might raise them too because they see a chance to grab even more clients. Then the first one sees there's still room to hike prices further. And so on. It has nothing to do with brains, it's all about greed. Everyone is wrong when a competitor—a serious predator—invests huge amounts of money just to squeeze a little extra cash out of a business.

Here is another example of "good competition." Higher education. Universities are independent and theoretically could raise tuition enough to balance supply and demand. A true economic endeavor. Turning a school into a profit-driven corporation is desirable if you want higher earnings. It's the same with the pharmaceutical industry. Drugs that work but can't be patented in every possible way get hidden away. They need to make as much money as possible, even if it's at the expense of treating people.

Or take Bill Gates. The man made a fortune. Do you think he's thinking about offering products at lower prices? No way. The shareholders would have him ousted immediately. Grab as much cash as you can while you can. There's the Federal Reserve to print more to cover new debt. And who's going to pay for it? Bill Gates doesn't really care.

So much for competition and achieving optimal profit.

We’ve reached the point where solutions from this whole mess... they start looking like socialist or communist ideas. Sure, but those ideas stem from trying to find a source of profit, which in this case is the federal budget deficit (specifically the version involving printing money). It is a democratic right to vote on whether someone's labor is valued more than others—basically, deciding if there should be a cap on wage ratios. Even now, the government does this by demanding pay cuts for corporate executives.

Supporting pay without actual work leads straight to ruin.

First, we have to agree on where a community's indirect profit actually comes from. People still don't want to admit that.
Second. We have to realize that the current financial system isn't a permanent fix because it creates massive debts out of thin air. Take inflation, for example. You're wrong to conclude that the state profits from inflation. That's only true when the government prints the money. Nowadays, it's the banks making the real money, and they make way more. You mentioned correctly that the bank didn't profit because inflation ate it up, but you forgot that the exact same bank provided the entire inflationary sum in the first place.

For instance, looking at the projection after 14 years, the situation is:

Money supply = 161.87%
Inflationary mass = 61.87%
Interest from previous periods: 28.41%
Current interest: 5.42%
Total debt = inflationary mass + previous interest + current interest = 95.70%

Now, if we assume the money has lost value by 1.6187 times and normalize the resulting debt, we get 59.12% of the normalized money supply.

In economic terms, I see the same 100% real value, plus interest on 59% of that value (the inflationary part and the interest). To put it in plain, almost folksy terms: it's like someone telling you that you owe seven of your monthly salaries and you have to pay interest on that throughout the year. You can't even pay back the principal because that money doesn't exist—it's just part of the inflationary money supply. It works out to about 42% of a monthly salary that needs to be spread over 12 months. Maybe that comparison isn't perfect, but it's close. Except that in 8 years, you have to double your payments, and in 15 years, you have to double them again.
After four of those doublings, you'll have to hand over your entire income just to cover the interest on the inflationary mass. Basically, all your earnings will go toward feeding inflation.

The projection shows that by 2018, the normalized money supply and the normalized debt from the inflationary mass will equalize. In economic language, the bank (or several banks) will hold such large claims (due to the growing principal) that they will exceed the entire money supply. For those who grasp this less easily, it means that by then, we will globally become debt slaves with no way out.
So, in just 22 years, with 3.5% inflation and 6% interest, we become debt slaves solely due to the impact of inflation. If we add constant imports, the profits of other entities, and extra borrowing, it means this will happen much sooner. This is exactly what happened in Greece. We are just following their lead.

The projection isn't a perfect picture of reality, of course, but it shows the direction things are heading (even if different numbers are playing the role).

Inflation within a credit-based financial system is a topic they don't even touch in economics classes.
The indirect sources of profit for a community within a credit system (or any system, really) aren't taught in college either.

Analyzing these issues gives you the answer: the system is flawed and unsustainable.

Anyone can think whatever they want about this, but reality is what proves it.

Scarcity is caused exclusively by the credit system and inflation. There is absolutely no foundation for continuous prosperity because bank interest eats everything we have.

You don't need to be an economist to see the link between the system and the crisis. Everyone in this system is in a crisis (with very rare exceptions).

If someone is studying economics, they should ask these red questions to a competent professor. I'm really curious to hear the answer. They wouldn't give me one.

Cheers

😂

Maria Thomas48, you are truly driving me to the brink of madness. I feel physically ill. 🙂
But I will try one more time...

Here is a perfect example of how competition can actually backfire. You go to a local farmers market and look at the prices for lettuce. Everyone is selling it at the exact same rate. $5.00It is highly unlikely that everyone uses the exact same supplier. Consider this alternative perspective. I am aware my product is inferior, yet I choose to highlight the price just as aggressively as the others. In doing so, I effectively undermine those who invest significant effort into offering high-quality goods at a premium. My salad costs less to produce, even if the quality is lower, because I am simply exploiting an uninformed customer base. To the casual observer, the products look identical. Meanwhile, a truly excellent producer is being driven out of business.

Suppose your cousin Luka offered to sell you some firewood at a discount. What would you say to him? It’s pure greed. Yet, he could easily do it. That is simply how the market works.

Competition and profit margins can exist in total opposition. Take the banking sector, for example. Banks often have little incentive to truly compete when they operate within a monopoly. If one major bank raises its fees, another might follow suit simply to capture more market share. Once that first bank sees there is still room to maneuver, they raise prices even further. It isn't a matter of intellect; it is purely a matter of greed. Everyone is at fault when a serious predator decides to pour massive capital into a business just to squeeze out a small amount of high-margin profit.

Here is another textbook example of what people call "healthy competition." Consider the cost of higher education. Universities operate as independent entities, and theoretically, they could hike tuition rates whenever necessary to balance supply and demand. It is a pure economic maneuver. They aim to transform academic institutions into profit-driven corporations where maximizing margins is the primary goal. The pharmaceutical industry operates under a similar logic. When drugs are effective but cannot be easily patented, companies find every possible way to obscure them from the market. The objective remains the same: maximize revenue, even if it comes at the expense of patient care. Is this truly how a society should function?

Take the salad analogy. It represents a genuine possibility within a functional system. However, to make the logic hold up, you have to introduce one more vital premise into the equation. It is this: "All people are idiots." Once you accept that, then you have:

Everyone is selling salad for fifteen dollars. Is this really happening?
The quality of this salad is simply inferior to the other options available. Is it too much to ask for consistency?
It seems everyone is simply an idiot. This is extremely important.
----------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion? Every vendor out there is selling the exact same salad for fifteen bucks.

In a system where not everyone is an idiot, rumors spread incredibly fast. You see it with your own eyes. If you serve a salad that is subpar—dry, stale, or just plain old—the whole thing falls apart. Why would anyone settle for less?
If I am going to buy inferior wood from my brother Luka, the premise remains the same. Suppose I were an idiot.Without that underlying premise, the entire system falls apart. How can it hold weight? If I spot a superior offer from another supplier, the logic fails.

What can one even say about the banks? It isn’t easy for them either. Nowadays, half the population—if you consider how many people actually think about their responsibilities—simply refuses to pay back what they owe. On top of that, a significant number of people are looking for capital abroad. How is a bank supposed to return funds to depositors when the borrower refuses to settle their debt? They resort to fees. They hike interest rates. They charge for late notices. The honest citizens are left struggling to make ends meet however they can. From the bank's perspective, they lent the money fairly. They drafted the contracts honestly. They laid out the terms transparently. Now, they are left hoping some shady, dishonest fraudster who signed those papers actually honors their obligation before disappearing. But let us get back to the main topic.

Universities. Let's take this on as a topic for a research paper. Why is it that in America, we have such a vast landscape of private universities, yet here in our country, everything seems centered around just one major public institution? In a place like Miami, you might see specialized programs for tourism management, but is that all there is to it? Does anyone else have any insights on this?

I will say it once more: you are profoundly mistaken. You have constructed a personal theory, convinced yourself that you have finally unlocked the hidden mechanics of the system, and yet you are completely off base. You are staring at a single pixel and claiming to understand the entire portrait. I repeat, you are wrong. You are deeply, fundamentally wrong. Go back to the beginning. Study the facts from scratch. And then, perhaps, reconsider your position.

A professor once told me this during my college days: when you stumble upon a brilliant idea—one that feels like pure strokes of genius—don't let your ego run away with you. You might feel incredibly lucky to have conceived it, wondering why nobody else thought of it first. But before you rush headlong into execution, stop. Do your homework. Research whether someone else has already attempted this and, more importantly, what their results were. Education is the only way to validate intuition.

I could offer you the exact same advice. The concept of printing money to solve liquidity shortages is an ancient idea—far older than you likely realize. Even in the Roman Empire, they used to debase coins by using lead cores wrapped in gold. It didn't take long before no sane person would trade for them. Have you ever wondered why the custom exists to bite a gold coin when someone hands it to you? It was to check its purity.

There is still so much you don't know. With such limited knowledge, you are attempting to lecture people who possess far more expertise than you—the administration, the President's advisors, the Federal Reserve, and university economics professors. To be perfectly honest, if I had received an email like yours, I wouldn't even bother replying. At most, I might send a brief note stating that your position has been noted.

Gregory Williams7 said:Maria Thomas48, you are truly driving me to the brink of madness. I feel physically ill. 🙂
But I will try one more time...

Here is a perfect example of how competition can actually backfire. You go to a local farmers market and look at the prices for lettuce. Everyone is selling it at the exact same rate. $5.00It is highly unlikely that everyone uses the exact same supplier. Consider this alternative perspective. I am aware my product is inferior, yet I choose to highlight the price just as aggressively as the others. In doing so, I effectively undermine those who invest significant effort into offering high-quality goods at a premium. My salad costs less to produce, even if the quality is lower, because I am simply exploiting an uninformed customer base. To the casual observer, the products look identical. Meanwhile, a truly excellent producer is being driven out of business.

Suppose your cousin Luka offered to sell you some firewood at a discount. What would you say to him? It’s pure greed. Yet, he could easily do it. That is simply how the market works.

Competition and profit margins can exist in total opposition. Take the banking sector, for example. Banks often have little incentive to truly compete when they operate within a monopoly. If one major bank raises its fees, another might follow suit simply to capture more market share. Once that first bank sees there is still room to maneuver, they raise prices even further. It isn't a matter of intellect; it is purely a matter of greed. Everyone is at fault when a serious predator decides to pour massive capital into a business just to squeeze out a small amount of high-margin profit.

Here is another textbook example of what people call "healthy competition." Consider the cost of higher education. Universities operate as independent entities, and theoretically, they could hike tuition rates whenever necessary to balance supply and demand. It is a pure economic maneuver. They aim to transform academic institutions into profit-driven corporations where maximizing margins is the primary goal. The pharmaceutical industry operates under a similar logic. When drugs are effective but cannot be easily patented, companies find every possible way to obscure them from the market. The objective remains the same: maximize revenue, even if it comes at the expense of patient care. Is this truly how a society should function?

Take the salad analogy. It represents a genuine possibility within a functional system. However, to make the logic hold up, you have to introduce one more vital premise into the equation. It is this: "All people are idiots." Once you accept that, then you have:

Everyone is selling salad for fifteen dollars. Is this really happening?
The quality of this salad is simply inferior to the other options available. Is it too much to ask for consistency?
It seems everyone is simply an idiot. This is extremely important.
----------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion? Every vendor out there is selling the exact same salad for fifteen bucks.

In a system where not everyone is an idiot, rumors spread incredibly fast. You see it with your own eyes. If you serve a salad that is subpar—dry, stale, or just plain old—the whole thing falls apart. Why would anyone settle for less?
If I am going to buy inferior wood from my brother Luka, the premise remains the same. Suppose I were an idiot.Without that underlying premise, the entire system falls apart. How can it hold weight? If I spot a superior offer from another supplier, the logic fails.

What can one even say about the banks? It isn’t easy for them either. Nowadays, half the population—if you consider how many people actually think about their responsibilities—simply refuses to pay back what they owe. On top of that, a significant number of people are looking for capital abroad. How is a bank supposed to return funds to depositors when the borrower refuses to settle their debt? They resort to fees. They hike interest rates. They charge for late notices. The honest citizens are left struggling to make ends meet however they can. From the bank's perspective, they lent the money fairly. They drafted the contracts honestly. They laid out the terms transparently. Now, they are left hoping some shady, dishonest fraudster who signed those papers actually honors their obligation before disappearing. But let us get back to the main topic.

Universities. Let's take this on as a topic for a research paper. Why is it that in America, we have such a vast landscape of private universities, yet here in our country, everything seems centered around just one major public institution? In a place like Miami, you might see specialized programs for tourism management, but is that all there is to it? Does anyone else have any insights on this?

I will say it once more: you are profoundly mistaken. You have constructed a personal theory, convinced yourself that you have finally unlocked the hidden mechanics of the system, and yet you are completely off base. You are staring at a single pixel and claiming to understand the entire portrait. I repeat, you are wrong. You are deeply, fundamentally wrong. Go back to the beginning. Study the facts from scratch. And then, perhaps, reconsider your position.

A professor once told me this during my college days: when you stumble upon a brilliant idea—one that feels like pure strokes of genius—don't let your ego run away with you. You might feel incredibly lucky to have conceived it, wondering why nobody else thought of it first. But before you rush headlong into execution, stop. Do your homework. Research whether someone else has already attempted this and, more importantly, what their results were. Education is the only way to validate intuition.

I could offer you the exact same advice. The concept of printing money to solve liquidity shortages is an ancient idea—far older than you likely realize. Even in the Roman Empire, they used to debase coins by using lead cores wrapped in gold. It didn't take long before no sane person would trade for them. Have you ever wondered why the custom exists to bite a gold coin when someone hands it to you? It was to check its purity.

There is still so much you don't know. With such limited knowledge, you are attempting to lecture people who possess far more expertise than you—the administration, the President's advisors, the Federal Reserve, and university economics professors. To be perfectly honest, if I had received an email like yours, I wouldn't even bother replying. At most, I might send a brief note stating that your position has been noted.

So, I guess that's the trick, right? How to just... not answer the questions. I don't know. I just know that someone out there wrote something about this once, and you're out here looking for it. Of course they did. Someone definitely wrote it.

So, I finally got around to ordering a copy of dirkati Krueger's "Macroeconomics." Just as I was digging into the details, I stumbled right into that mathematical derivation. It looks like they’ve opened it up to the public community now.

I could probably go on about all the ways people might be pulling profit through indirect channels, but someone else already covered that ground earlier. You should probably just go back and read what was said before.

I've got a much tougher nut to crack here, and that's inflation within an exclusively credit-based system. I didn't really give it much thought at first, but honestly, it seems like the easiest way to prove the whole thing is just heading straight for a disaster.

Just focus on that steady, long-term inflation target. That's really all we need to look at.

There’s this theory floating around that the government actually turns a profit specifically because it doesn't just print money whenever it feels like it. It's an interesting way to look at things. Basically, by not just running the presses constantly, the state maintains its value and builds up its standing. It's all about that restraint.

I already laid out my projections: we’re looking at 3.5% inflation and bank interest rates sitting at 6%. I don't see what part of that isn't clear.

Let's take this one step at a time. If you just walk away now, you're basically admitting you can't prove your support. Either that, or you could just put together your own projection so we can actually see where you're coming from.

If inflation eats away at the value of money, then you basically need a larger volume of cash just to maintain the same real purchasing power. It’s pretty straightforward. The whole premise here is that we're trying to keep the actual, real-world money supply constant.

So, where does the money actually come from in the current system? It comes from credit, investments, budget deficits, and exports. But when you look at the budget deficit, that’s essentially just more credit. And as for exports—specifically the net difference between what we export and what we import—we can basically just assume that part is zero for the sake of this argument.

What are the actual permanent drivers behind inflation here? You’ve got trade surpluses and credit, though credit only works for so long before the debt levels get messy. A trade surplus isn't exactly a permanent fix or a universal solution for every nation. I mean, China is still pulling it off for now, but I honestly don't think that's going to last much longer. So, at the end of the day, credit remains the go-to move for most countries.

How does credit actually drive inflation? It’s pretty straightforward. When you take out a loan, you start buying stuff—everything from groceries to cars—and that cash stays moving through the economy. But here's the thing: not everyone can pay their loans back at the same time. If they did, we wouldn't see an increase in the money supply; we’d actually see it shrink. So, to keep things moving, even larger loans have to be taken out. That’s really the core of how you have to look at it. People can argue about this until they're blue in the face, but the logic holds up. If the total amount of money in circulation is growing due to inflation, the only way that happens is through someone taking on debt, either directly or indirectly. There just aren't any other permanent sources for increasing the money supply.

5. Now that we finally know it's... Credit. It’s just one of those things that sits there in the background of everything we do. You think about it when you're looking at a mortgage or maybe just trying to get a decent car loan, and then you realize how much it actually dictates the flow of life. It's all interconnected. People talk about interest rates and the Federal Reserve like they're these distant, abstract concepts, but it hits home when you're staring at a monthly statement. It’s heavy, honestly. Just something to ponder. (someone's state, personal, residential, etc.) The source of funding for increasing the money supply. It's a fundamental question. Basically, when you look at how the money supply expands, you're looking at the actions taken by the Federal Reserve. They control the levers. Through open market operations—buying up government securities, for instance—they inject liquidity directly into the system. This isn't just some abstract theory; it's how the gears actually turn in the US economy. You have the central bank facilitating this flow, which then trickles down through the commercial banking sector. It’s all interconnected. The expansion happens because the Fed decides to increase its balance sheet. Simple enough, really. That's where the new money enters the bloodstream of the financial system. It’s basically just an inflationary mass, really. You have to run a simulation over a specific number of years to see how it actually plays out. So, I went ahead and built that model myself.

So, the logic goes that if you don't like the result, then the whole process must be flawed. Yeah, right. That's just not how it works.

It’s the exact same deal as the budget deficit. It’s been proven that you can't just pay it back when it’s being funded through credit—especially under the same terms 99% of countries operate under—so it’s just not a sound move. This is basically the same thing as what dirkati Krueger talks about. I just added my own conclusions to it. I did the same thing when I added my takeaways regarding inflation.

I'm done writing novels. Just let me know which part doesn't make sense, okay?

Maria Thomas48 said:So, I guess that's the trick, right? How to just... not answer the questions. I don't know. I just know that someone out there wrote something about this once, and you're out here looking for it. Of course they did. Someone definitely wrote it.

So, I finally got around to ordering a copy of dirkati Krueger's "Macroeconomics." Just as I was digging into the details, I stumbled right into that mathematical derivation. It looks like they’ve opened it up to the public community now.

I could probably go on about all the ways people might be pulling profit through indirect channels, but someone else already covered that ground earlier. You should probably just go back and read what was said before.

I've got a much tougher nut to crack here, and that's inflation within an exclusively credit-based system. I didn't really give it much thought at first, but honestly, it seems like the easiest way to prove the whole thing is just heading straight for a disaster.

Just focus on that steady, long-term inflation target. That's really all we need to look at.

There’s this theory floating around that the government actually turns a profit specifically because it doesn't just print money whenever it feels like it. It's an interesting way to look at things. Basically, by not just running the presses constantly, the state maintains its value and builds up its standing. It's all about that restraint.

I already laid out my projections: we’re looking at 3.5% inflation and bank interest rates sitting at 6%. I don't see what part of that isn't clear.

Let's take this one step at a time. If you just walk away now, you're basically admitting you can't prove your support. Either that, or you could just put together your own projection so we can actually see where you're coming from.

If inflation eats away at the value of money, then you basically need a larger volume of cash just to maintain the same real purchasing power. It’s pretty straightforward. The whole premise here is that we're trying to keep the actual, real-world money supply constant.

So, where does the money actually come from in the current system? It comes from credit, investments, budget deficits, and exports. But when you look at the budget deficit, that’s essentially just more credit. And as for exports—specifically the net difference between what we export and what we import—we can basically just assume that part is zero for the sake of this argument.

What are the actual permanent drivers behind inflation here? You’ve got trade surpluses and credit, though credit only works for so long before the debt levels get messy. A trade surplus isn't exactly a permanent fix or a universal solution for every nation. I mean, China is still pulling it off for now, but I honestly don't think that's going to last much longer. So, at the end of the day, credit remains the go-to move for most countries.

How does credit actually drive inflation? It’s pretty straightforward. When you take out a loan, you start buying stuff—everything from groceries to cars—and that cash stays moving through the economy. But here's the thing: not everyone can pay their loans back at the same time. If they did, we wouldn't see an increase in the money supply; we’d actually see it shrink. So, to keep things moving, even larger loans have to be taken out. That’s really the core of how you have to look at it. People can argue about this until they're blue in the face, but the logic holds up. If the total amount of money in circulation is growing due to inflation, the only way that happens is through someone taking on debt, either directly or indirectly. There just aren't any other permanent sources for increasing the money supply.

5. Now that we finally know it's... Credit. It’s just one of those things that sits there in the background of everything we do. You think about it when you're looking at a mortgage or maybe just trying to get a decent car loan, and then you realize how much it actually dictates the flow of life. It's all interconnected. People talk about interest rates and the Federal Reserve like they're these distant, abstract concepts, but it hits home when you're staring at a monthly statement. It’s heavy, honestly. Just something to ponder. (someone's state, personal, residential, etc.) The source of funding for increasing the money supply. It's a fundamental question. Basically, when you look at how the money supply expands, you're looking at the actions taken by the Federal Reserve. They control the levers. Through open market operations—buying up government securities, for instance—they inject liquidity directly into the system. This isn't just some abstract theory; it's how the gears actually turn in the US economy. You have the central bank facilitating this flow, which then trickles down through the commercial banking sector. It’s all interconnected. The expansion happens because the Fed decides to increase its balance sheet. Simple enough, really. That's where the new money enters the bloodstream of the financial system. It’s basically just an inflationary mass, really. You have to run a simulation over a specific number of years to see how it actually plays out. So, I went ahead and built that model myself.

So, the logic goes that if you don't like the result, then the whole process must be flawed. Yeah, right. That's just not how it works.

It’s the exact same deal as the budget deficit. It’s been proven that you can't just pay it back when it’s being funded through credit—especially under the same terms 99% of countries operate under—so it’s just not a sound move. This is basically the same thing as what dirkati Krueger talks about. I just added my own conclusions to it. I did the same thing when I added my takeaways regarding inflation.

I'm done writing novels. Just let me know which part doesn't make sense, okay?

Very well, let's go through this step by step.

1) Inflation—by definition, implies an increase in the money supply.
In fact, an increase in the money supply is baked into the very definition of inflation.
Therefore, we don't need more money for the same value because inflation "decided" to show up today. We need more money for the same value because there is *more* money in the system, which automatically makes each unit worth less. The quantity of money has already increased at the exact moment the value drops. This is vital! Do not overlook this! Money doesn't lose value because inflation arrived, necessitating more printing; rather, money is being printed, which causes it to lose value. Printing more will only accelerate the devaluation.

2) Money enters the system through only one channel: the central bank. The Federal Reserve issues the primary supply of money, and no other entity holds that right. The money issued by the Fed must be "covered" somehow. This could be via foreign exchange, bonds, securities, and so on. Each of these elements behaves differently over time and influences the currency in its own way. A nation holding all its reserves in cash acts differently than one holding them in gold, bonds, or even fertilizer for the soil.
We see a massive gap between our exports and imports. I suspect exports cover barely 50% of imports. To claim this can be ignored is a grave error. However, even if it did have an impact, the effect would be deflationary rather than inflationary (dollars leaving the system rather than returning). Furthermore, the vast majority of loans issued in the US are in dollars. Their impact on the dollar is minimal. The budget deficit is the primary driver of inflation in America. Everything else is too negligible to consider.

3) If one nation runs a trade deficit, there must be another nation running an equal deficit with the opposite sign. This is essentially Newton's third law applied to economics, a concept taught at the start of high school. To claim that all nations must have a trade deficit is... well, let's call it vague. Does everyone import more than they export? From where? Mars? Ideally, every nation would have 100.00% of its imports covered by exports. That would be the perfect balance. In practice, however, that is impossible.

4) History shows us that it has never happened that everyone repaid their debt simultaneously. Someone always defaults. A debt default carries a certain probability, which is accounted for by interest. But in reality, money circulates. Money is merely a medium for exchanging goods and labor; it possesses no intrinsic value. It is "spent." Though, strictly speaking, it isn't spent—it is simply exchanged for goods. To simplify: you lend me $40 at 10% interest so I can open a bar. I pay you back $3.25 every month. The first month, I return $3.25 to you. You spend all that cash on a night out, those people go to the doctor for checkups, and the doctor takes those $3.25 to the bar to grab a drink. Suddenly, I have $3.25 again, which I return to you next month. It is a cycle. There is no conspiracy here. Where does the interest come from? Interest is generated through labor! The issue isn't the amount of money in the system; it is the lack of labor required to repay that money. Credit can fuel inflation only for a very short time—until the source runs dry—after which deflation follows. Budget deficits are a different matter entirely.

The money supply is irrelevant when discussing credits and debt repayment. The total amount of money in the system has nothing to do with the ability to repay a loan. The only theoretical problem arises if everyone were to save in cash. Saving in cash is, in practice, the worst form of saving possible. This is precisely why inflation exists; it serves as a corrective measure against hoarding cash, forcing us to put our savings into stocks, real estate, mutual funds, or whatever else.

5) Credit is not the reason for an increase in the money supply. At least not here in the US. Perhaps it happens elsewhere, but in the US, the money supply remains fixed relative to Euro reserves. This is actually beneficial because we practically import everything. Consequently, prices can only rise on domestic products.

Remember this: a healthy economy must be built upon saving and investing. Increasing the money supply generates inflation and discourages saving—and without saving, there can be no investment or development.
Economic policy will never be a generator of economic growth. At most, it can serve as a solid foundation for future development. Anyone who expects economic policy to generate growth all by itself is either delusional, foolish, or uneducated.

Gregory Williams7 said:Maria Thomas48, you are truly driving me to the brink of madness. I feel physically ill. 🙂
But I will try one more time...

Here is a perfect example of how competition can actually backfire. You go to a local farmers market and look at the prices for lettuce. Everyone is selling it at the exact same rate. $5.00It is highly unlikely that everyone uses the exact same supplier. Consider this alternative perspective. I am aware my product is inferior, yet I choose to highlight the price just as aggressively as the others. In doing so, I effectively undermine those who invest significant effort into offering high-quality goods at a premium. My salad costs less to produce, even if the quality is lower, because I am simply exploiting an uninformed customer base. To the casual observer, the products look identical. Meanwhile, a truly excellent producer is being driven out of business.

Suppose your cousin Luka offered to sell you some firewood at a discount. What would you say to him? It’s pure greed. Yet, he could easily do it. That is simply how the market works.

Competition and profit margins can exist in total opposition. Take the banking sector, for example. Banks often have little incentive to truly compete when they operate within a monopoly. If one major bank raises its fees, another might follow suit simply to capture more market share. Once that first bank sees there is still room to maneuver, they raise prices even further. It isn't a matter of intellect; it is purely a matter of greed. Everyone is at fault when a serious predator decides to pour massive capital into a business just to squeeze out a small amount of high-margin profit.

Here is another textbook example of what people call "healthy competition." Consider the cost of higher education. Universities operate as independent entities, and theoretically, they could hike tuition rates whenever necessary to balance supply and demand. It is a pure economic maneuver. They aim to transform academic institutions into profit-driven corporations where maximizing margins is the primary goal. The pharmaceutical industry operates under a similar logic. When drugs are effective but cannot be easily patented, companies find every possible way to obscure them from the market. The objective remains the same: maximize revenue, even if it comes at the expense of patient care. Is this truly how a society should function?

Take the salad analogy. It represents a genuine possibility within a functional system. However, to make the logic hold up, you have to introduce one more vital premise into the equation. It is this: "All people are idiots." Once you accept that, then you have:

Everyone is selling salad for fifteen dollars. Is this really happening?
The quality of this salad is simply inferior to the other options available. Is it too much to ask for consistency?
It seems everyone is simply an idiot. This is extremely important.
----------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion? Every vendor out there is selling the exact same salad for fifteen bucks.

In a system where not everyone is an idiot, rumors spread incredibly fast. You see it with your own eyes. If you serve a salad that is subpar—dry, stale, or just plain old—the whole thing falls apart. Why would anyone settle for less?
If I am going to buy inferior wood from my brother Luka, the premise remains the same. Suppose I were an idiot.Without that underlying premise, the entire system falls apart. How can it hold weight? If I spot a superior offer from another supplier, the logic fails.

What can one even say about the banks? It isn’t easy for them either. Nowadays, half the population—if you consider how many people actually think about their responsibilities—simply refuses to pay back what they owe. On top of that, a significant number of people are looking for capital abroad. How is a bank supposed to return funds to depositors when the borrower refuses to settle their debt? They resort to fees. They hike interest rates. They charge for late notices. The honest citizens are left struggling to make ends meet however they can. From the bank's perspective, they lent the money fairly. They drafted the contracts honestly. They laid out the terms transparently. Now, they are left hoping some shady, dishonest fraudster who signed those papers actually honors their obligation before disappearing. But let us get back to the main topic.

Universities. Let's take this on as a topic for a research paper. Why is it that in America, we have such a vast landscape of private universities, yet here in our country, everything seems centered around just one major public institution? In a place like Miami, you might see specialized programs for tourism management, but is that all there is to it? Does anyone else have any insights on this?

I will say it once more: you are profoundly mistaken. You have constructed a personal theory, convinced yourself that you have finally unlocked the hidden mechanics of the system, and yet you are completely off base. You are staring at a single pixel and claiming to understand the entire portrait. I repeat, you are wrong. You are deeply, fundamentally wrong. Go back to the beginning. Study the facts from scratch. And then, perhaps, reconsider your position.

A professor once told me this during my college days: when you stumble upon a brilliant idea—one that feels like pure strokes of genius—don't let your ego run away with you. You might feel incredibly lucky to have conceived it, wondering why nobody else thought of it first. But before you rush headlong into execution, stop. Do your homework. Research whether someone else has already attempted this and, more importantly, what their results were. Education is the only way to validate intuition.

I could offer you the exact same advice. The concept of printing money to solve liquidity shortages is an ancient idea—far older than you likely realize. Even in the Roman Empire, they used to debase coins by using lead cores wrapped in gold. It didn't take long before no sane person would trade for them. Have you ever wondered why the custom exists to bite a gold coin when someone hands it to you? It was to check its purity.

There is still so much you don't know. With such limited knowledge, you are attempting to lecture people who possess far more expertise than you—the administration, the President's advisors, the Federal Reserve, and university economics professors. To be perfectly honest, if I had received an email like yours, I wouldn't even bother replying. At most, I might send a brief note stating that your position has been noted.

I feel like I should weigh in here for a second too.

The main difference between our college experiences boils down to this: we don't have to reinvent the wheel anymore because everything is already laid out online 😉

I realize that having all those answers at our fingertips can definitely stifle true creativity, though it certainly makes things efficient...

Nowadays, most ideas are just slight variations on existing themes rather than anything truly groundbreaking.

At the end of the day, it really just comes down to timing—whether the people in charge are actually open to new ideas or if they're just being stubborn...

Gregory Williams7 said:Very well, let's go through this step by step.

1) Inflation—by definition, implies an increase in the money supply.
In fact, an increase in the money supply is baked into the very definition of inflation.
Therefore, we don't need more money for the same value because inflation "decided" to show up today. We need more money for the same value because there is *more* money in the system, which automatically makes each unit worth less. The quantity of money has already increased at the exact moment the value drops. This is vital! Do not overlook this! Money doesn't lose value because inflation arrived, necessitating more printing; rather, money is being printed, which causes it to lose value. Printing more will only accelerate the devaluation.

2) Money enters the system through only one channel: the central bank. The Federal Reserve issues the primary supply of money, and no other entity holds that right. The money issued by the Fed must be "covered" somehow. This could be via foreign exchange, bonds, securities, and so on. Each of these elements behaves differently over time and influences the currency in its own way. A nation holding all its reserves in cash acts differently than one holding them in gold, bonds, or even fertilizer for the soil.
We see a massive gap between our exports and imports. I suspect exports cover barely 50% of imports. To claim this can be ignored is a grave error. However, even if it did have an impact, the effect would be deflationary rather than inflationary (dollars leaving the system rather than returning). Furthermore, the vast majority of loans issued in the US are in dollars. Their impact on the dollar is minimal. The budget deficit is the primary driver of inflation in America. Everything else is too negligible to consider.

3) If one nation runs a trade deficit, there must be another nation running an equal deficit with the opposite sign. This is essentially Newton's third law applied to economics, a concept taught at the start of high school. To claim that all nations must have a trade deficit is... well, let's call it vague. Does everyone import more than they export? From where? Mars? Ideally, every nation would have 100.00% of its imports covered by exports. That would be the perfect balance. In practice, however, that is impossible.

4) History shows us that it has never happened that everyone repaid their debt simultaneously. Someone always defaults. A debt default carries a certain probability, which is accounted for by interest. But in reality, money circulates. Money is merely a medium for exchanging goods and labor; it possesses no intrinsic value. It is "spent." Though, strictly speaking, it isn't spent—it is simply exchanged for goods. To simplify: you lend me $40 at 10% interest so I can open a bar. I pay you back $3.25 every month. The first month, I return $3.25 to you. You spend all that cash on a night out, those people go to the doctor for checkups, and the doctor takes those $3.25 to the bar to grab a drink. Suddenly, I have $3.25 again, which I return to you next month. It is a cycle. There is no conspiracy here. Where does the interest come from? Interest is generated through labor! The issue isn't the amount of money in the system; it is the lack of labor required to repay that money. Credit can fuel inflation only for a very short time—until the source runs dry—after which deflation follows. Budget deficits are a different matter entirely.

The money supply is irrelevant when discussing credits and debt repayment. The total amount of money in the system has nothing to do with the ability to repay a loan. The only theoretical problem arises if everyone were to save in cash. Saving in cash is, in practice, the worst form of saving possible. This is precisely why inflation exists; it serves as a corrective measure against hoarding cash, forcing us to put our savings into stocks, real estate, mutual funds, or whatever else.

5) Credit is not the reason for an increase in the money supply. At least not here in the US. Perhaps it happens elsewhere, but in the US, the money supply remains fixed relative to Euro reserves. This is actually beneficial because we practically import everything. Consequently, prices can only rise on domestic products.

Remember this: a healthy economy must be built upon saving and investing. Increasing the money supply generates inflation and discourages saving—and without saving, there can be no investment or development.
Economic policy will never be a generator of economic growth. At most, it can serve as a solid foundation for future development. Anyone who expects economic policy to generate growth all by itself is either delusional, foolish, or uneducated.

Just one thought here:

Very few people can actually work through the math and wrap their heads around the theory of relativity. So, naturally, it’s probably just some difficult nonsense or a total lie.

Every single point made is just full of inaccuracies, which I can see quite clearly even though I'm not an expert in Macroeconomics. There isn't really a need for me to break it down step by step. Those who get it, get it, and those who don't will probably just end up failing the exam or paying for a passing grade.

I'd have plenty more to say about how amateur this all is, but I should probably try to stay polite.

bye

Maria Thomas48 said:Just one thought here:

Very few people can actually work through the math and wrap their heads around the theory of relativity. So, naturally, it’s probably just some difficult nonsense or a total lie.

Every single point made is just full of inaccuracies, which I can see quite clearly even though I'm not an expert in Macroeconomics. There isn't really a need for me to break it down step by step. Those who get it, get it, and those who don't will probably just end up failing the exam or paying for a passing grade.

I'd have plenty more to say about how amateur this all is, but I should probably try to stay polite.

bye

😂 You should've told him.

Don't stop now; we were just starting to catch a glimpse of what you're actually thinking. It's not fair to gatekeep all that wisdom. We can handle a little profanity if it means getting the truth. 😁

Honestly, I think the biggest mistake anyone can make is closing themselves off to a different perspective...

There was a crucial point mentioned just a few posts up, and it’s something we shouldn't overlook: the idea that "people are unpredictable idiots." When you factor in that kind of irrationality, any model becomes incredibly hard to pin down. It’s likely that trying to account for such an erratic variable makes their entire calculation fall apart, which probably turns into a massive headache for their statistical modeling😬

neonhound10 said:Honestly, I think the biggest mistake anyone can make is closing themselves off to a different perspective...

There was a crucial point mentioned just a few posts up, and it’s something we shouldn't overlook: the idea that "people are unpredictable idiots." When you factor in that kind of irrationality, any model becomes incredibly hard to pin down. It’s likely that trying to account for such an erratic variable makes their entire calculation fall apart, which probably turns into a massive headache for their statistical modeling😬

Regarding the initial point, please refrain from attacking me. I have listened patiently to your views, read everything you wrote, and did my absolute best to explain why certain things won't work quite the way you imagined.

As for the other matter, take my word for it: people are not idiots.😉 They might act foolishly as a crowd, but they aren't mindless. They know what serves them and what doesn't. It simply comes down to which group holds the majority. Is it the spenders or the savers? One side will inevitably face the consequences. Which one? That remains to be seen.

Furthermore, since our debts are held in dollars, someone printing more dollars means nothing to us. Even if the Fed decided to print more, it wouldn't change our situation because our national reserves are held in dollars.

Flawed logic leads to flawed ideas. Eventually, a leader will emerge who attempts to use the Federal Reserve's reserves to pay off external debt. And then, we see the fallout.

I have listened to your opinions and attempted to highlight the errors. Now, I suggest you try to understand an opposing view and think for yourselves...

Gregory Williams7 said:Regarding the initial point, please refrain from attacking me. I have listened patiently to your views, read everything you wrote, and did my absolute best to explain why certain things won't work quite the way you imagined.

As for the other matter, take my word for it: people are not idiots.😉 They might act foolishly as a crowd, but they aren't mindless. They know what serves them and what doesn't. It simply comes down to which group holds the majority. Is it the spenders or the savers? One side will inevitably face the consequences. Which one? That remains to be seen.

Furthermore, since our debts are held in dollars, someone printing more dollars means nothing to us. Even if the Fed decided to print more, it wouldn't change our situation because our national reserves are held in dollars.

Flawed logic leads to flawed ideas. Eventually, a leader will emerge who attempts to use the Federal Reserve's reserves to pay off external debt. And then, we see the fallout.

I have listened to your opinions and attempted to highlight the errors. Now, I suggest you try to understand an opposing view and think for yourselves...

I'm sorry, but that post wasn't actually directed at you.

Besides, you actually know how to hold a decent conversation, unlike some people around here...

As far as I'm concerned...

👍

neonhound10 said:Honestly, I think the biggest mistake anyone can make is closing themselves off to a different perspective...

There was a crucial point mentioned just a few posts up, and it’s something we shouldn't overlook: the idea that "people are unpredictable idiots." When you factor in that kind of irrationality, any model becomes incredibly hard to pin down. It’s likely that trying to account for such an erratic variable makes their entire calculation fall apart, which probably turns into a massive headache for their statistical modeling😬

True. People have spent five pages trying to walk him through this, but he just shuts it out.

neonhound10 said:I'm sorry, but that post wasn't actually directed at you.

Besides, you actually know how to hold a decent conversation, unlike some people around here...

As far as I'm concerned...

👍

A real debate involves addressing someone else's points, not just mindlessly repeating your own mantra. If he spent half the time he uses writing these endless essays actually learning what money is, he might realize where he's wrong. You aren't going to win an argument with him. Either ignore him or mock him. Some people choose to be polite and just ignore.

Pike makes a valid point. We constantly see enthusiasts from the Alternative subforum drifting in here, acting as if they’ve suddenly cracked the code to the global crisis. After the twentieth time you hear the same thing, you can't really expect people to have the energy to explain it all over again like they did at the start. You simply burn out. It is the same cycle, repeating itself endlessly.

Bradley Walker88 said:😂 You should've told him.

Don't stop now; we were just starting to catch a glimpse of what you're actually thinking. It's not fair to gatekeep all that wisdom. We can handle a little profanity if it means getting the truth. 😁

If you guys actually need details, I'll just mark the half-truths and the wrong stuff in BOLD.

Gregory Williams7 said:Very well, let's go through this step by step.

1) Inflation—by definition, implies an increase in the money supply.
In fact, an increase in the money supply is baked into the very definition of inflation.
Therefore, we don't need more money for the same value because inflation "decided" to show up today. We need more money for the same value because there is *more* money in the system, which automatically makes each unit worth less. The quantity of money has already increased at the exact moment the value drops. This is vital! Do not overlook this! Money doesn't lose value because inflation arrived, necessitating more printing; rather, money is being printed, which causes it to lose value. Printing more will only accelerate the devaluation.

2) Money enters the system through only one channel: the central bank. The Federal Reserve issues the primary supply of money, and no other entity holds that right. The money issued by the Fed must be "covered" somehow. This could be via foreign exchange, bonds, securities, and so on. Each of these elements behaves differently over time and influences the currency in its own way. A nation holding all its reserves in cash acts differently than one holding them in gold, bonds, or even fertilizer for the soil.
We see a massive gap between our exports and imports. I suspect exports cover barely 50% of imports. To claim this can be ignored is a grave error. However, even if it did have an impact, the effect would be deflationary rather than inflationary (dollars leaving the system rather than returning). Furthermore, the vast majority of loans issued in the US are in dollars. Their impact on the dollar is minimal. The budget deficit is the primary driver of inflation in America. Everything else is too negligible to consider.

3) If one nation runs a trade deficit, there must be another nation running an equal deficit with the opposite sign. This is essentially Newton's third law applied to economics, a concept taught at the start of high school. To claim that all nations must have a trade deficit is... well, let's call it vague. Does everyone import more than they export? From where? Mars? Ideally, every nation would have 100.00% of its imports covered by exports. That would be the perfect balance. In practice, however, that is impossible.

4) History shows us that it has never happened that everyone repaid their debt simultaneously. Someone always defaults. A debt default carries a certain probability, which is accounted for by interest. But in reality, money circulates. Money is merely a medium for exchanging goods and labor; it possesses no intrinsic value. It is "spent." Though, strictly speaking, it isn't spent—it is simply exchanged for goods. To simplify: you lend me $40 at 10% interest so I can open a bar. I pay you back $3.25 every month. The first month, I return $3.25 to you. You spend all that cash on a night out, those people go to the doctor for checkups, and the doctor takes those $3.25 to the bar to grab a drink. Suddenly, I have $3.25 again, which I return to you next month. It is a cycle. There is no conspiracy here. Where does the interest come from? Interest is generated through labor! The issue isn't the amount of money in the system; it is the lack of labor required to repay that money. Credit can fuel inflation only for a very short time—until the source runs dry—after which deflation follows. Budget deficits are a different matter entirely.

The money supply is irrelevant when discussing credits and debt repayment. The total amount of money in the system has nothing to do with the ability to repay a loan. The only theoretical problem arises if everyone were to save in cash. Saving in cash is, in practice, the worst form of saving possible. This is precisely why inflation exists; it serves as a corrective measure against hoarding cash, forcing us to put our savings into stocks, real estate, mutual funds, or whatever else.

5) Credit is not the reason for an increase in the money supply. At least not here in the US. Perhaps it happens elsewhere, but in the US, the money supply remains fixed relative to Euro reserves. This is actually beneficial because we practically import everything. Consequently, prices can only rise on domestic products.

Remember this: a healthy economy must be built upon saving and investing. Increasing the money supply generates inflation and discourages saving—and without saving, there can be no investment or development.
Economic policy will never be a generator of economic growth. At most, it can serve as a solid foundation for future development. Anyone who expects economic policy to generate growth all by itself is either delusional, foolish, or uneducated.

Why are these claims half-truths or just plain lies? Just look at the Federal Reserve statistics; the increase in the money supply was driven by credit, subsidies, and foreign investment (because there aren't any other options). The money supply has grown manifold, yet inflation has stayed within reasonable limits the whole time.

People intentionally refuse to admit that if the sources of the money supply are known, we can assume part of that money carries the inflationary mass while the rest does not. Therefore, using Fed data, we can calculate exactly how much of that is inflationary mass. This assumes the real value of the money supply remains constant. If the inflationary mass is tied to credit (which it is, since other sources are minimal), then you can precisely calculate the interest rates on that debt over time.

If someone has accurate inflation statistics from 1996 to 2009 and the total money supply figures from 1996 to today by year, I would be happy to calculate how much free value remains in the system (mostly pumped up by credit) above the inflationary mass. Basically, the money that didn't cause inflation. This contradicts the claim that all money supply causes inflation . Plus, if you had the yearly debt data, I could piece together quite a bit. The results would likely be interesting. That’s what I asked the Fed for, but they wouldn't run the numbers for me.

In step one, you're arguing for stopping the printing of money?! And credit is exactly what drives that printing. -- That’s the same thing I concluded when I said you shouldn't lend more than can be repaid. In other words, it's the same thought. But that has nothing to do with the actual claim. Inflation is measured by the rising price of goods. That means you need more money for the same item. So, the argument is wrong and lacks any basis
.
Step two isn't countered by any actual arguments
.
Step three is just a repetition without any counter-arguments
.
Step four fails to provide another source of money for the inflationary mass
.
Step five consists of false claims that contradict Fed statistics regarding the money supply
.
Total score: zero points. Anyone can have an opinion, but you have to defend it with logic. This narrative doesn't hold water or even relate to the claims being made.

Beyond that, my explanation accounts for everything happening in America and globally (like Greece...).

Just a bitter dose of sugar that leads straight to economic diabetes.

The reason the Federal Reserve doesn't complain about the current state of things is simple. In this kind of crisis, maintaining the exchange rate and "price stability" isn't actually a struggle for them. If the government were ever forced to pay for actual new value through primary issuance, then the Fed would find itself in deep trouble. People would immediately rush to swap their dollars for foreign currency just to buy stuff from abroad. Foreign reserves would evaporate in the blink of an eye, leaving everyone holding a mountain of useless paper and no way to buy anything real. That’s the core issue. You could bypass this by using a global currency that any central bank would have the right to issue based on the national deficit. Of course, we aren't talking about running hot money printers 24/7; I mean under the constant supervision of independent auditors. This would eliminate the need for this type of exchange rate regulation, replacing it with strict oversight of the deficit within every federal budget according to a set formula. Everyone knows this is how the European Central Bank is supposed to function. It wouldn't stop bank lending entirely, but it would provide a way to limit credit expansion because current cash flow projections—which are totally unrealistic right now—would become grounded in reality.

There. Since I’ve pointed out the flaw, I’ve essentially solved the regulatory system too. Now we just need to actually implement it, and the cycle of endless debt will finally break.

As for those jabs at my intelligence, I think Jesus said it best:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Flaunting my IQ doesn't interest me. I didn't start this thread to outsmart anyone or brag about some specific number—numbers don't mean much if you haven't used your brain to apply them effectively. My goal was to use logic to prove that this entire financial system is unsustainable. Over the last few months, more mathematical arguments have surfaced that prove this point beyond any doubt.

That’s why I hold back from typing out the first thing that comes to mind when I read nonsense. Labeling someone isn't a valid argument in a debate. One insult just invites another, and that's a loop I'm not interested in joining. Being arrogant and rude is usually the exact opposite of being an intellectual.

Regards.

P.S. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me toward where I can find exact data on inflation (I have that part covered), the total money supply (in hard numbers), and the national debt (in hard numbers) broken down by year.

Could you explain to me why certain goods see price increases during periods of inflation?

Gregory Williams7 said:Could you explain to me why certain goods see price increases during periods of inflation?

If you think I’m going to sit here and develop some grand theory on inflation, you’ve got the wrong guy. There are plenty of theorists who have already tackled that problem. I don't really have anything to argue with their work. It’s all been written down, so just go read up on it.

I’m not actually interested in the cause. I care about the consequences for the economy and how it hits people's finances. Supply and demand, commodity exchange—none of that really matters to me.

The obvious side effect of inflation is that you need more cash to buy the same stuff. But the invisible side effect is the choice you face within the financial system. You either stick with the same amount of money, which means your purchasing power shrinks, or you increase your money supply to compensate and try to maintain that purchasing power. That’s just what any person would do for their family.

My choice was to try and hold onto that purchasing power by using credit to make up for the loss of cash value. Why credit? Because money isn't printed; it's issued through credit. Just look at the Federal Reserve laws and the Statute of the ECB.

So, if the ECB says they aren't distributing money, but rather providing credit, then any new money out there is either credit or someone's (foreign) savings being turned into an investment or a community grant.

If someone can't wrap their head around that, they probably haven't read the Federal Reserve laws or the Statute of the ECB enough times. Money isn't printed—it exists only as credit.

Honestly, only a fool could read the laws governing the Federal Reserve or the Statute of the ECB (and the Fed's own statutes) and still claim there’s some other way for the money supply to grow.
Sure, you might find a chest of gold coins or some other currency from before 1913, but that doesn't move the needle.

And that is the key point. Almost all the money in circulation (except for maybe a tiny percentage) is someone's credit—that includes the government, corporations, and individuals. So, claiming that an increased money supply doesn't come from credit is just nonsense. Or, more accurately, it's about 95% nonsense.

Now everything makes sense. Every bit of credit has its interest rate—its price. I’ve actually calculated it myself.
And now you probably expect me to explain inflation itself, or why the sky is blue, or why it rains. It’s irrelevant. If we need a larger money supply, we just need to know what it costs. And why is it like this? Just ask the global bankers who wrapped all of this up in fancy cellophane—calling it "price stability" and "exchange rates"—and sold it as the one perfect solution. Because there is no other way.

Isn't it weird that there are at least four different theories on inflation? Usually, when people don't know the truth, they try to force it into a theory.

The actual truth is: inflation = the need + greed for money.


So, I’m happy to let anyone try to prove me wrong with counterarguments—show me that today's money (new money that wasn't already part of an existing money supply) doesn't arrive via the method I described. I have the proof right there in the Statute of the ECB, the Fed, and the Federal Reserve laws. Except for interest on deposits held at the central bank, which isn't even worth mentioning.

Best,