reply to post by Merinda
I hope I did this right, it will give you something to argue abour. Here, real simple example, 50% of business value is held by small business and 50%
business value is held by multinationals, the government operational cost is 2 trillion, the deficit is zero and tax receipts are 2 trillion. That's
called balanced, but that at present isn't reality, Let's take a more realistic example, the business split is the same but the tax receipts are 5
trillion, the operational costs are 4 trillion and the deficit is 10 trillion, we would have 1 trillion per year to service the interest on the debt
to the IMF and World Bank (owned by the queen and the rothschilds). If the service interest is 1 trillion, we are balanced. If the service interest is
less than a trillion, we have a surplus to bring down the principle on the debt.
Now, take away 50% of the jobs provided by multinationals, eg. ship them overseas and what happens to your numbers? Well the balance of existing
businesses shifts without adding new businesses and the ratios change, 67% now become small businesses, and 33% are now multinationals, the tax
receipts drop by 25% down to 3.75 trillion, operational costs are still 4 trillion and you get to increase the deficit by .25 trillion (borrowing from
the IMF) and 1 trillion (borrowing the debt servicing from the IMF to pay itself). That's a big enough problem, but since the loss of those jobs has
removed 1.25 trillion from the economy, that means there is less money to be spent at small businesses, 1.25 trillion less, so the economy shrinks by
50% as that 1.25 trillion is removed from circulation.
The only option in this model is to increase taxes, which forces more multinationals out of the country and places an increasing burden on small
business. So let's say 10% of small business now goes bankrupt and 25% of the multinationals move overseas. That removes 6.7% plus 8.5% of businesses
that produce jobs, hence money from the economy. Now there is a 30% contraction in value of the economy because there is roughly a 15% loss in income
producing jobs and 15% less value in the economy.
So at the beginning, iteration 1, the dollar was worth one dollar. At iteration 2, the dollar might have been worth a little more than a dollar or
would at least break even. At iteration 3, the dollar would be worth less $0.50 as the deficit increases. At iteration 4, the last example, the dollar
would be worth less 42 cents as the deficit skyrockets. This is a simple 4 year operation in financial mechanics.
Now let's look at buying power. What costs a dollar in iteration 1 and 2 remains at a value of 1 dollar. At iteration 3, you spend $2.00 to pay for
something that has a value of 1 dollar in the previous 2 iterations. At iteration 4 you must pay $2.50 for something valued at 1 dollar in iteration 1
and 2. This is called inflation. Since the charter of the FED in 1913, the cost of "things" has gone up 96% or what had a value of 4 cents for in 1913
now costs 1 dollar. To reverse that, you know have to spend 25 (2012) dollars to receive the value of 1 (1913) dollar.
Yes, global and national decisions effect small business and economies directly. You can collapse a country in 8 years or less if deliberate actions
are taken to circumvent monetary and economic policy in favour of corporations rather than the people, the little people, you an me that make the
economy work by spending money, fiat or otherwise.
The numbers are not perfect as I wrote this out quickly. And every business and every person is a part of the economy and the decisions they make
effect the economy based of their individual percentages of the economy.
Cheers - Dave
edit on 11/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)