Austin Steinbart's Proposal to Save America

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: Nevercompromise

Thank you for the most relevant post I've seen in a long time.

Said the OP's alter ego... rotflmao!

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Not a thing... what's wrong with you?

You can't even read your own posts carefully.

So you need to learn how to say what you mean.

You said, and I quote: "It is not loaned into existence at interest. Rather, it is loaned into existence."

If it isn't loaned at interest but 'is just loaned', the only rational way to interpret that is as an interest free loan.

This follows what you wrote: "Also, it is loaned into existence at interest, and the interest necessary to pay off the debt isn't created at the same time, creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off." The interest does not have to be created at the same time!

-sigh-

Each of which result in an additional amount of money that must be paid back with interest.

Why are you constantly focusing on these single, one-off individual loans when we're talking about the national debt.

We were not talking about the national debt!

Me: "It doesn't work that way: money isn't created arbitrarily but loaned into existence." This refers to money supply, not the national debt.

You: "Also, it is loaned into existence at interest, and the interest necessary to pay off the debt isn't created at the same time, creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off." "It" refers to money, not the national debt.

The interest doesn't have to be created at the same time as the loan.

Finally, I'm going to help you out: why is it impossible for the U.S. to pay off the national debt? It's not because the interest on that debt isn't created at the same time as the debt. It's because the country isn't earning from trade. Again, look up the Triffin dilemma.

Which just adds more to the national debt that must be paid back, with interest that was never created.

The interest is not "never created." Otherwise, the national debt cannot increase further!

I'm beginning to suspect you are either just gaslighting me, or are just a dunce.

I think you're just confused.

Rotflmao! Not even close...

The fact that you don't know what the Triffin dilemma is says otherwise. You know why? Because it never occurred to you that the U.S. can't pay back its debts because it's not earning enough from trade.

It racks up tremendous and progressively higher debt loads because the system itself requires that new money constantly be injected into the system, which creates more debt, which creates the need for more new money to be injected into the system... ala the classic 'vicious circle'.

Exactly. That's why your claim that it's physically impossible to pay off loans is wrong.

Next, do you know why total debt is rising in the U.S.? It's not because of a "classic 'vicious circle'" but because the country isn't earning enough from trade.

Ummm... duh?

Loans are postpaid, i.e., you pay them back in the future.

I have not made such a claim. Others may have at one point or another, but I haven't.

I said the national debt cannot be repaid.

It can't be paid back not because interest isn't created at the same time as loans but because of the Triffin dilemma: chronic trade deficits starting in the 1970s leading to heavy borrowing and spending from the 1980s onward.

I agree, but that is irrelevant.

It's relevant because the interest needed to pay back loans can be created before, during, or after you make a loan.

We're talking about the national debt... for the goddamned 150th time.

No, we were not, as explained above. I was talking about money supply and how money is created.

What is wrong with you? You're acting like a busted AI with a huge scratch on your digital scratchpad,

Now, you mentioned earlier that I'm part of the same ponzi scheme. Are you implying that you're not?

Of course not, Everyone who uses our monetary system [articipated, whether they like it or not.

What is wrong with you? You insist that you are talking about the national debt but refer to a ponzi scheme involving money creation, which is a different topic!

Again, I was talking about money supply, and how money is loaned into existence.

Look, genius,

That is rich coming from someone who simply cannot grasp a simple fact.

One ... more ... time ...

I am not talking about one-off/single/individual loans. Got it. Or do I need to repeat myself a few dozen more times??

I'm talking about the #ING ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT YOU -censored-!.

Get it now?



That's rich from someone who can't tell the difference between money loaned into existence and the national debt! One more time:

Our discussion is about money loaned into existence. You came up with the absurd claim that because interest is not created at the same time as the loan, then the loan cannot be paid off. That's wrong!

Yes, I was, and I have now made that crystal clear. I also apologized for not making that crystal clear from the beginning, thinking that you were able to grok what I was saying without me having to spell out every single little detail. I was wrong. You are simply refusing to accept that.

Your argument is wrong:

Also, it is loaned into existence at interest, and the interest necessary to pay off the debt isn't created at the same time, creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off.

The loan is not impossible to pay off because the interest can come from previous loans made by others or in new loans made later. The catch is that I have to work and earn in order to get money from those loans to pay for the interest.

That's also why your view of national debt is wrong: the U.S. has to take on more debt not because the interest on loans that it makes isn't created at the same time as the loans it makes but because it's not earning enough from trade to make debt payments.

No. I wasn't. But by all means, quote where I said that if you can...

All I said about individual loans was that when the loan is made, the 'money' for the =interest that will be needed to pay off the loan is not created, only the principal is created. That is all I said about individual loans.

Now, either address what I actually said or STFU.

See my points above.

Good god. You really are an AI, probably written by Bill Gates himself - I always heard he was a piss poor programmer.

You didn't address my point.

Yes I do, no he was not, and no it did not. So... #ing... what? Did I say otherwise?

Same problem here.

I was simply using him and his ponzi scheme as an example - meaning, they are both ponzi schemes.

The rising national debt does not involve a ponzi scheme but the Triffin dilemma.

In short, you are incapable of carrying on a rational discourse.

Didn't address my point again.

The only point you've made is that you're totally incapable of reading with any amount of comprehension.

Still don't get it: the national debt is rising because of chronic trade deficits which started during the 1970s.

Low ave. growth rate starting in the 1970s:

data.worldbank.org...

Coupled with chronic trade deficits starting in the mid-1970s:

www.statista.com...

Leading to total debt burden rising from the 1980s onward:

seekingalpha.com...

In short, the Triffin dilemma: the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency made exports too expensive for others and imports for the U.S. too cheap, leading to trade deficits and thus lower growth. Meanwhile, costs went up, leading to heavier borrowing and spending during the following decade, and leading to not only a high national debt but high total debt.

Interesting that literally while I was writing this post the Silicon Valley Bank was going bellup and the FDIC was stepping in to take it over.
Bank runs are imminent.
It just so happens that the SVB houses the USDC.
The 1st to drop?
The USDC is linked to Tether.
Tether is linked to Bitcoin.

Monday looks to be a bloodbatha reply to: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
Interesting that literally while I was writing this post the Silicon Valley Bank was going bellup and the FDIC was stepping in to take it over.

What I find interesting is that you totally ignored the specific questions I asked.

Either that was just an oversight (nah(, or I'll just say thanks for at least admitting you are unable to answer them.

Bank runs are imminent.

Could be...

It just so happens that the SVB houses the USDC.

I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about, you'd have to answer what you mean by 'houses'...

The reality is, the corporation 'Circle' that issues/manages trades for the cryptocurrency called the USD Coin, which is a stable coin tied to the US Dollar, has massive exposure to the SVB by virtue of having almost 8% of its $40 billion in reserves tied up in the SVB. So, yeah, that is a problem.

The 1st to drop?

Could be, we'll know soon enough.

The USDC is linked to Tether.

That would depend on what you mean by 'linked'. Unless by 'linked' you mean they're both stable coins that are pegged to the US Dollar, then no, they are not linked in any other way.

Tether is linked to Bitcoin.

Again, that would depend on what you mean by 'linked'. Unless you simply mean that Tether was initially issued on the bitcoin blockchain (but can now be issued on any blockchain that tether supports, which currently is: Algorand, Avalanche, Ethereum, EOS, Liquid Network, Near, Omni, Polygon, Solana, Bitcoin Cash's Standard Ledger Protocol, Statemine, Statemint, Tezos, and Tron. Otherwise, no, they aren't linked, especially in the way you appear to be implying. If tether collapses today or whenever, it will not have a direct impact on bitcoin, but bitcoin prce could fluctuate in tame wasy it reacts to anything that causes major moves in the USD or the stock/bond markets.

Monday looks to be a bloodbath

We'll see. We're definitely living in interesting times.

In the meantime, you might address one or all of the questions and points I've raised making it very clear you apparently are clueless when it comes to crypto in general, and bitcoin specifically.

In addition to all of the points I raised, these 2 questions stand out:

How, exactly, is bitcoin a ponzi/pyramid scheme?

and

How, exactly, is 'Ripple backed by gold'?

To be able to fully satisfy your requests for me to have 100% understanding of everything I post about even though I do not have an in depth knowledge of every aspect of everything and anything I try to express, due to my ignorance I am hiring a person to read my posts and submit a proofread copy edit with footnotes for you.
Keep checking your personal messages for ats mail for your updates.

In the meantime I really do have to give you credit for all the googling you do here.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
Interesting that literally while I was writing this post the Silicon Valley Bank was going bellup and the FDIC was stepping in to take it over.

What I find interesting is that you totally ignored the specific questions I asked.

Either that was just an oversight (nah(, or I'll just say thanks for at least admitting you are unable to answer them.

Bank runs are imminent.

Could be...

It just so happens that the SVB houses the USDC.

I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about, you'd have to answer what you mean by 'houses'...

The reality is, the corporation 'Circle' that issues/manages trades for the cryptocurrency called the USD Coin, which is a stable coin tied to the US Dollar, has massive exposure to the SVB by virtue of having almost 8% of its $40 billion in reserves tied up in the SVB. So, yeah, that is a problem.

The 1st to drop?

Could be, we'll know soon enough.

The USDC is linked to Tether.

That would depend on what you mean by 'linked'. Unless by 'linked' you mean they're both stable coins that are pegged to the US Dollar, then no, they are not linked in any other way.

Tether is linked to Bitcoin.

Again, that would depend on what you mean by 'linked'. Unless you simply mean that Tether was initially issued on the bitcoin blockchain (but can now be issued on any blockchain that tether supports, which currently is: Algorand, Avalanche, Ethereum, EOS, Liquid Network, Near, Omni, Polygon, Solana, Bitcoin Cash's Standard Ledger Protocol, Statemine, Statemint, Tezos, and Tron. Otherwise, no, they aren't linked, especially in the way you appear to be implying. If tether collapses today or whenever, it will not have a direct impact on bitcoin, but bitcoin prce could fluctuate in tame wasy it reacts to anything that causes major moves in the USD or the stock/bond markets.

Monday looks to be a bloodbath

We'll see. We're definitely living in interesting times.

In the meantime, you might address one or all of the questions and points I've raised making it very clear you apparently are clueless when it comes to crypto in general, and bitcoin specifically.

In addition to all of the points I raised, these 2 questions stand out:

How, exactly, is bitcoin a ponzi/pyramid scheme?

and

How, exactly, is 'Ripple backed by gold'?

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
To be able to fully satisfy your requests for me to have 100% understanding of everything I post about

Again with your strawman based gaslighting attempts.

I never 'requested' that you or anyone have "100% understanding" of anything. I simply suggest that you shouldn't comment on things of which you know almost nothing. So, yes, I should hope that you would have at least some understanding of the subject.

Otherwise, as you clearly demonstrate, you're just spouting nonsense.

In the meantime I really do have to give you credit for all the googling you do here.

It took me all of 2 minutes to get the details needed to expose your ignorance using a tool freely available to everyone (yourself included). You might consider using it next time before displaying your ignorance to the world.

Now, care to address any of the lies I called you out on? Like:

'Ripple', the company that issued all of and controls XRP cryptocoin) is somehow 'backed by gold', to any degree?
- it isn't, and can never be

USDC is 'linked' to Tether (USDT).
- it isn't, other than they're both stable coins pegged (linked) to the US Dollar

USDT is 'linked' to bitcoin.
- it isn't, and never was

Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.
- it isn't, never was, can never be

a reply to: tanstaafl

I have had severe issues with every cryptocurrency since the collapse of Arbitrade on Bermuda. Frankly that was was a ponzi scheme that the Bermudian Government fell for, hook, line and sinker.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: tanstaafl

I have had severe issues with every cryptocurrency since the collapse of Arbitrade on Bermuda.

Yeah there have been a lot of examples of crypto ponzi schemes.

Btu I'm not sure... are you lumping bitcoin in with crypto;s in general?

Frankly that was was a ponzi scheme that the Bermudian Government fell for, hook, line and sinker.

Not sure why you say 'thankfully'... ?

You think you know BTC?
Tell me.
Where is the data center kept for BTC?
I know, do you?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: tanstaafl

I have had severe issues with every cryptocurrency since the collapse of Arbitrade on Bermuda.

Yeah there have been a lot of examples of crypto ponzi schemes.

Btu I'm not sure... are you lumping bitcoin in with crypto;s in general?

Frankly that was was a ponzi scheme that the Bermudian Government fell for, hook, line and sinker.

Not sure why you say 'thankfully'... ?

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You think you know BTC?

I don't know every little thing, but I know enough.

Tell me.
Where is the data center kept for BTC?

There isn't one.

I know,

Do tell...

Lol
You say there is none yet you think that can be regulated to satisfy it being a central bank currency?
How ludicrous can you be.

3gorges dam operated by the CCP just outside Wuhan.

Enjoy your delusions while they still exist

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You think you know BTC?

I don't know every little thing, but I know enough.

Tell me.
Where is the data center kept for BTC?

There isn't one.

I know,

Do tell...
Are you going to tell me what you know before or after you google it?

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You say there is none yet you think that can be regulated to satisfy it being a central bank currency?
How ludicrous can you be.

Your commentary is virtually unintelligible... you know that, right?

I'll pretend that I don't notice the fact that you are not answering any questions of mine - since obviously you cannot, because you have no clue about any of it - but I'm consistently answering all of yours.

You really probably shouldn't drink-n-post.

But if you are trying to suggest that I think that bitcoin is going to or should be a central bank currency, I never suggested such a thing, and wouldn't, because I not only am fairly certain it never will be, nor do I think it should.

How irrational can you be?

3gorges dam operated by the CCP just outside Wuhan.

Hoover Dam operated by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation on the border of Arizona and Nevada.

See? I can toss out random facts too.

Enjoy your delusions while they still exist

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad coming from someone actually suffering from delusions.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl
You can't even read your own posts carefully.

Ok, after reading this line, I said what the hell and re-read my last post, then thought very carefully about our back and forth, and a thought occurred to me. After validating my suspicion, I realized that much of my arguments that you had to deal with - and fairly patiently I might add - were off-point/sideways because they were based on a false premise, so I apologize to you (and anyone else who bothered to read them), and it is time for me to enjoy a small helping of crow.

I also want to thank you monkeyluv, for sticking with this conversation. That said, I would like to continue it after getting it back on track if you're up for it, and I promise to be a bit more humble/respectful this time.

So, the false premise that I was considering as fact (but for the life of me, I don't know when or how/why it got ingrained) was that all of the private loans that our fractional reserve banking system issues that is responsible for a large portion of new money brought into circulation actually adds to the national debt. It didn't take very long for me to verify that this is simply not true.

So, I'm working on a follow-up to continue this discussion, but have been really busy, and not enough time to give this the attention it deserves, so will probably post it tomorrow.

a reply to: tanstaafl

That's very kind of you. I also apologize for the nastiness.

Here's what I gathered from the money multiplier:

www.theaustralian.com.au...

You open a bank, and you have initial capital, say $100. The central banks registers this. The government requires you to set aside a 10-pct reserve ratio, which means you can only lend $90. Here's where the ponzi scheme starts:

Say it so happens that someone wants to borrow that amount. You don't take $90 from the $100. Rather, you issue a check for $90, and it's backed by $90 in your possession.

Whatever he does with that $90, it will eventually be deposited in a bank. It can be the same bank or another, it doesn't matter because all banks operate in a closed system. From there, that bank can lend 90 pct of that deposit, or $81, but like before will issue a check for $81 to the borrower. That money will eventually be deposited in a bank, where 90 pct of it can be lent, etc.

Continue doing this, and if you add up the amounts ($100 + $90 + $81, and so on), the sum is $1,000 or ten times the initial capital of $100. That's the money multiplier, and it makes money creation from interest look like chump change.

But here's where it gets even worse: according to the article, base money should reflect the amount kept in reserve, or the $100, which means M2 or the total money supply should be no more than ten times greater, right? In 2007, the base money was around $60 billion but total money supply was $7.25 trillion, or many times larger than what a money multiplier would allow. What happened?

It's "endogenous money," or money created outside the reserve requirement restriction which makes a money multiplier a myth: not that money is not multiplied thanks to more loans but that it is multiplied way beyond what should be allowed.

Here's the real magic: credit. Money is only part of credit, which can be created by financial institutions outside banks and even outside central banks and any regulators:

www.creditcontraction.com...

The largest component is derivatives, which are essentially bets made on bets, and has a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars. Only a trillion dollars of that in toxic real estate assets were needed to send the world on its knees in 2008, and there's more where that came from. Someone characterized derivatives as side bets: you have a boxing match where you can see revenues from corporate sponsorship and ticket sales, and an even bigger and unregulated market where people make bets on the match. That's the derivatives market.

Finally, this notion of creating promissory notes out of nothing, or out of gold and silver, which are essentially impractical metals (too soft to be used as tools and for weapons, and too heavy for armor), started a long time ago. Merchants would deposit gold and silver and pay a banker to protect them, and then realized that it would be more practical (and even safer!) to use bank notes for trade instead of carrying heavy sacks of coins around. Later, bankers could lend the coins to others at interest since most of them were barely touched, and then later issue bank notes to borrowers that were way beyond what was in their vaults as depositors (who now demanded a cut from the interest bankers earned from loans) didn't want anyone to know how much wealth they had, and bankers made sure to protect the interest of their clients.

Thus began the ponzi scheme, and explains why the corporations that rule the world economy are essentially financial:

www.newscientist.com...

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The largest component is derivatives, which are essentially bets made on bets, and has a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars.

An economy is supposed to be the exchange of value produced by human endeavor, as in old-fashioned work.

Investments in enterprises are supposed to aid in the production of old-fashioned goods and services.

A gambling casino doesn't fit that description.

Give it a rest.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: monkeyluv
An economy is supposed to be the exchange of value produced by human endeavor, as in old-fashioned work.

Investments in enterprises are supposed to aid in the production of old-fashioned goods and services.

A gambling casino doesn't fit that description.

All true... but...

Give it a rest.

Not sure what you meant by that parting shot. monkeyluv is just describing the way our current monetary system works. Are you under the impression he is actually advocating for it? Because I have never gotten that impression.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I think you both are having an honest conversation.

What I'm driving at is the underlying dishonesty everywhere one looks.

Lies everywhere.

We the people are living in a clown world of lies and deception.

I'm weary of it.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

Here's what I gathered from the money multiplier:

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am well and fully versed in how our fractional reserve banking system works. I read Modern Money Mechanics decades ago.

But, I'm far from being even a reasonably knowledgeable layman on the overall economy, all of the different forms of money (M1, M2, M3, M4), and all of the wackiness that makes up the insane, corrupt stock market system, and how everything works together.

I was only explaining how I got one nasty little false fact buried in my brain that I have no idea how it got there, and thanking you for exposing it so I could purge it. I actually enjoy eliminating and/or correcting erroneous information I'm carrying.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: tanstaafl

I think you both are having an honest conversation.

What I'm driving at is the underlying dishonesty everywhere one looks.

Lies everywhere.

We the people are living in a clown world of lies and deception.

I'm weary of it.

Ah, ok then, we're in agreement, but just fyi, even after your explanation, your parting shot still reads exactly like it is aimed squarely at monkeyluv because you believe he is advocating for it.

In fact, you should be assisting in exposing it to all of the people who are still sleep-walking through life and totally unaware, and that is in fact precisely why I enjoy engaging in these kinds of discussion.