Austin Steinbart's Proposal to Save America

Look, this is not rocket science. World money supply keeps going up:

www.researchgate.net...

And way, way above the money multiplier.

So where does the money used to pay for the interest of loans come from? New loans.

Want to wrassle back money supply? That'll be like going back to post-WW2, but with more than triple the world population. When that happens, watch your current income and net worth plummet.

The implication of that? In order to "save America," you'll have to ruin it.

Untrue.
Blockchain solves that issue.
The problem then becomes in who controls the Blockchain data.
This is where AI gets empowered.
AI is both the solution and the problem.
An example.
Blockchain completely solves the farmer- fork regulation difficulties.
It can completely erase the control the processing facilities have over farmers getting paid fairly and food costs remaining reasonable for the consumer at the same time avoiding paying interest on the monies needed for consumers.

Spain uses a Blockchain for their organic produce and it works.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: Nevercompromise

The problems began centuries before derivatives appeared, e.g., bank notes for convenience, and it involves the idea that fungible currency is not acceptable by most. Otherwise, everyone would be poor, i.e., they can only earn at most a day's work.

And most don't want to be poor.

Not sure where you are going with this.
Our spending value of USD is 1/10
of what it was in 2007.
What are you trying to save?

originally posted by: monkeyluv
Look, this is not rocket science. World money supply keeps going up:

www.researchgate.net...

And way, way above the money multiplier.

So where does the money used to pay for the interest of loans come from? New loans.

Want to wrassle back money supply? That'll be like going back to post-WW2, but with more than triple the world population. When that happens, watch your current income and net worth plummet.

The implication of that? In order to "save America," you'll have to ruin it.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

It's not relevant because the main source of funds to pay off loans and interest is also the main source of funds to pay off loans without interest: new loans.

Yes - each of which also require interest to be paid off in full.

This brings me to the correction I recently made in my understanding of the nature of our problems. I didn't elaborate on this revelation when I apologized and had my small dish of crow, because I wanted to try to see where we may agree or disagree, but I'll elaborate now.

While I was wrong that this adds to an ever-growing national debt, instead, it is a massive hidden tax and the source of the ever growing inflation that eats away at the purchasing power of every 'dollar' in circulation.

As long as there is loose monetary policy - meaning, low interest rates resulting in lots of 'new money' coming into circulation in the form of 'new loans' - we have an expansion of our money supply creating a boom cycle that hides a whole lot of the above (hidden taxes in the form of the loss of purchasing power of your 'dollars' - ie, inflation.

Now... what happens when these same ptb start raising rates, which result in a contraction of our money supply?

If it is a mathematical impossibility to pay off loans then there should be no more no loans.

This is stated incorrectly...

The mathematical impossibility of paying off existing loans is the direct result of 'no more new loans'.

But there have been for centuries, and there are more new loans today.

Yes, people have been allowing the banksters to engage in their massive fraud and theft schemes ever since they (the banksters) figured out how to hide the reality that is fractional reserve banking from the masses.

This is precisely what Henry Ford meant when he said:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

To answer your question, more loans are created, and backed by new collateral. In several cases, loans are even made with no collateral.

Yes, each and every one of which requires interest to pay off in full, and further reduces the purchasing power of every 'dollar' in circulation.

That's why the total amount of loans never stops at $1 million; it keeps going up.

Yes... until tptb decide to tighten monetary policy - ie, raising interest rates and changing requirements for new loans making it harder (for some) or impossible (for many) to get new loans, etc - which in turn makes it harder for people to acquire the 'dollars' needed to both survive and service their existing debt.

Then what happens? It is called the 'bust' cycle, aka 'recession' and/or 'depression'.

Are you unaware that they do actually do this? That tptb (federal reserve) creates all of the huge boom/bust cycles, and do so intentionally (remember, nothing in politics happens by accident) - and that these factors played a huge role in causing of the Great Depression? Although, admittedly, the real reason that was manufactured was to facilitate their goal of stealing everyone's gold and taking us off of the internal gold standard, leaving us with just silver for real money until the final nail in the coffin of real money, the Coinage Act of 1965.

I starred your post.
When are you going to declare that money is not printed for each loan, but just a digital clicks creating debt.
I am not sure of the exact methodology but from there bonds are issued where government pays the interest on the bonds from debts acquired.
When the bonds mature they are kept by the FED.
In 1965 is when they created the Petro dollar which was the reasoning behind doing it.
Our dollar then was pegged on the Petro dollar.
OPEC never received cash but given 20 year bonds that the FED was then able to collect interest upon.
Now that the Petro dollar is gone.
What's next?

The key for them in this scheme was not controlling oil.
It was in controlling the banking payment system for oil. This eventually lead to SWIFT payment for all global trade.
And as you have heard me talk about in these threads we are both engaged in.
SWIFT is toast.
a reply to: tanstaafl



Edit:
They might have been 50 year bonds for opec

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

For the claim that it is mathematically impossible to pay off loans and interest, then there should have been no additional debt a long time ago because no new loans could be made.

This is just wrong, and a twisting of my words.

First, I have never, ever said that it is impossible to pay off one single, isolated loan, I have always made this statement in the context of all loans, as a systemic whole, and either you aren't grasping the difference, or you understand this but are just engaging in deflection and obfuscation to avoid admitting you are wrong and/or your understanding of this matter is incomplete at best, flat wrong at worst. It is impossible to make the determination as to which one as long as you continue what appears to be a disingenuous approach to this discussion.

Second, again, your statement itself is actually backwards.

It would be the discontinuation of any new loans being made that would create the condition of it being mathematically impossible to pay off all of the loans in existence at the time the new loans ceased.

Said another way, it is the perpetual 'new loans' that make it possible to continue paying off old loans - ie, the boom cycle. This, in fact, is the actual characteristic of our monetary system that makes it the greatest Ponzi scheme ever perpetuated. The 'new loans' are the new 'suckers'. When there are no more 'new loans' (suckers). the ponzi scheme collapses (a bust cycle occurs, recession/depression, mass bankruptices, etc).

There needs to be some clarification for the 2 things you guys are talking about but it being treated like it is the same.
Banks and Nation States use grey screen banking and it is regulated differently.
Lending institutions and local banks are franchises and use blue screen banking (I think it is blue, it might be green).
a reply to: tanstaafl
So local banks use blue screens for us normal people and they communicate with CB's using the grey screens

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
There needs to be some clarification for the 2 things you guys are talking about but it being treated like it is the same.
Banks and Nation States use grey screen banking and it is regulated differently.

I'm wondering if you see the irony of asking us to clarify things (I think I've been pretty damned clear about what I'm saying, but I agree that monkeyluv needs to step up his game there), then make a statement like:

Lending institutions and local banks are franchises and use blue screen banking (I think it is blue, it might be green).

So local banks use blue screens for us normal people and they communicate with CB's using the grey screens.

So, maybe you should clarify wtf you mean by these references to 'grey screen' and 'blue screen' banking?

I was referring to the discussion between the 2 of you.
You guys are discussing 2 different topics and not knowing it.
Both of you are right and wrong at the same timea reply to: tanstaafl

There are agreements between Nation States and CB's ( grey screens on the computers).
There are agreements with CB's and their franchisees which use blue screens.


Interaction with CB banks are grey screens

a reply to: Nevercompromise

What is needed is "getting down to brass tacks" between Steinbart and good interviewers who will ask relevant questions without leading the witness and confusing issues.

Forging a new system will be hard work but I'm hoping it can be done.

If everyone can step out of the mudpit of left-right wrangling and focus, instead, on saving a Republic, maybe we could get on with it.

It needs to be soon.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
I was referring to the discussion between the 2 of you.
You guys are discussing 2 different topics and not knowing it.

Prove it. Explain how and why, with clarity.

Both of you are right and wrong at the same time

Again. by all means, prove it, should be simple, eh?

There are agreements between Nation States and CB's ( grey screens on the computers).

I understand what agreements are, and that there can be agreements between Nations and commercial entities like banks (among others).

What I don't understand is, what is a 'grey screen on the computer'?

There are agreements with CB's and their franchisees which use blue screens.

Same issue - what are 'blue screens' in this context?

Interaction with CB banks are grey screens

And again, what are 'grey screens' in this context?

Come on, man! Speak plainly! Or I'll sick CornPop on you! You do know he's a bad dude, right?

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: monkeyluv
I hope that Pete Santilli brings Austin Steinbart back on for an interview soon, because we definitely need more input to get the real discussion started.

I for one can do without a deluded make believe billion-air who believes he is getting instructions from his future self, and also believes he is the great and powerful Q.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, you were not talking about all loans. Here's 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."

In short, you were talking about a loan in general. The point makes no sense because the money needed to pay the interest doesn't need to be created at the same time as the loan. It can come from prior, contemporaneous, or future loans. That's why it's wrong to claim that it is physically impossible to pay off a loan, and explains why loans have been generated for centuries.

Finally, about no new loans being made for any reason, that makes sense only if financiers are not in the business of lending.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Taxes and inflation are all chump change when it comes to debt generation. Check out "money multiplier," "endogenous money," and "credit." For the latter, include "derivatives." For more details, read my previous posts. All these will blow your view of dollars in circulation out of the water.

Loose monetary policy? Given a global derivatives market with a notional value north of a quadrillion dollars, try "what policy"?

People not only allowed banksters to perpetuate the fraud, they get their cut, too. And given derivatives, go beyond banking.

Henry Ford? He came up with an assembly line method, enriching himself and paying workers a bit more. The latter complained, and he offered even higher wages plus job security in exchange for no strikes, but they had to make sure that part of their now-higher wages would go to savings that could be used as collateral to buy more stuff. The banks joined in, offering layaway plans, allowing workers to buy more stuff ranging from Model Ts to iceboxes.

And that's how the consumer spending society was created! LOL.

Would you like to guess what happened after that?

About tightening monetary policy, that's what they're trying to do right now by hiking interest rates. What happened? Bond and stock prices fell, forcing bankers to cash in lower-valued assets as depositors withdrew, eventually selling more assets and initiating a blood bath. Bye bye, banks!

Finally, boom and bust cycles, sure, but money supply still goes up.

a reply to: Nevercompromise

You're talking about real wages, not money supply.

Money supply keeps going up even given the belief that it shouldn't.

a reply to: Nevercompromise

Blockchain is essentially the content of crytocurrency funny money generated by expending electricity!

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, you were not talking about all loans.

Yes, actually I was.

Here's 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."

In short, you were talking about a loan in general. The point makes no sense

It actually does, once you wrap your noggin around the fact that every loan is also loaned at interest that must be paid back, including the ones that are made that allow for commerce to be engaged in that allows you to earn the money to pay off your one individual loan including the interest.

When looked at through this lens of individual loans and all loans combined, it is obvious that it is a vicious circle of ever increasing needs for money to pay the interest of all loans combined that, ultimately, is mathematically impossible.

The proof is right in front of you, but you have to have eyes to see it: ever growing inflation.

Ever since the inception of the fractional reserve system, the purchasing power of the FRN has slowly but surely declined, to the point where the FRN today has lost 97+% of its purchasing power as compared to 1913 when the Federal Reserve system was established.

That, my friend, is the result of the mathematical impossibility you seem to be unable to grasp. I suggest you do what I did, and take a step back, and rethink your beliefs in this regard - that is, if you are truly in pursuit of the truth, and not just being right at the cost of the truth.

Finally, about no new loans being made for any reason, that makes sense only if financiers are not in the business of lending.

Financiers are in the business of making money, so as it becomes less profitable to loan money, they make fewer loans.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

Taxes and inflation are all chump change when it comes to debt generation. Check out "money multiplier," "endogenous money," and "credit." For the latter, include "derivatives." For more details, read my previous posts. All these will blow your view of dollars in circulation out of the water.

All of those extremely complex and intertwined aspects of the credit/stock system are what I was talking about where I simply don't have a grasp of it.

They are also an extremely effective way for you to constantly muddy the waters and refuse to engage in a conversation about the extremely simple and fundamental aspect of money creation.

The bottom line is, you have still failed to grasp and/or acknowledge the truth, that the fundamental aspect of money creation is the driving force of ever spiraling debt and inflation, and the proximate cause of all of our financial wose today.

Since you have no desire to even entertain this concept, I'll just say farewell and good luck to you.

Now you guys can discuss quantitative easing

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

Taxes and inflation are all chump change when it comes to debt generation. Check out "money multiplier," "endogenous money," and "credit." For the latter, include "derivatives." For more details, read my previous posts. All these will blow your view of dollars in circulation out of the water.

All of those extremely complex and intertwined aspects of the credit/stock system are what I was talking about where I simply don't have a grasp of it.

They are also an extremely effective way for you to constantly muddy the waters and refuse to engage in a conversation about the extremely simple and fundamental aspect of money creation.

The bottom line is, you have still failed to grasp and/or acknowledge the truth, that the fundamental aspect of money creation is the driving force of ever spiraling debt and inflation, and the proximate cause of all of our financial wose today.

Since you have no desire to even entertain this concept, I'll just say farewell and good luck to you.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
Now you guys can discuss quantitative easing

There is no point unless/until we can agree on the simplest of basics.