Austin Steinbart's Proposal to Save America

Ok I will do my best to help.
Money in the form of USD is worthless.
It is only a debt instrument.
It is not fungible.
It is only good for paying debt both public and private.
It gets paid interest to it's issuer many times over.
It is created by individuals and government by creating debt.
It never pays the principle.
Only debt.

The bonds once mature are kept by the issuer.
This is why all governments, local and federal, keep 2 sets of books.
One for assets.
One for debt.
You have to think inversion or you will never get it.
It is a never pay back debt system.
John Nash figured it all out in "prisoners Dilemma". It doesn't become zero- sum till you get to Nation State and play in derivatives.
From birth you are issued a value represented in credit based on your birth certificate.
At one time it was $2m. So you seek a credit score in order to participate. You deal in debt.
They deal in human currency.
You are property. Debt slaves

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

You want proof?
When you deposit your debt certificates into a bank.
Who owns the certificates?
The bank does.
But you get to keep the debt

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
Ok I will do my best to help.

Well, sorry to inform you that you failed miserably.

Feel free to try again, addressing the actual point being discussed...

But now you have changes to consider.
Which is why I do not consider crypto any real knowledge.
As of right now there is no Petro dollar.
The USD cannot be pegged by something that is nothing.
The gold backed Chinese yuan is the number 1 currency in trade for international exchange.
Sovereign debt and Special Drawing Rights.
The Fed is trying their best to be relevant but losing SWIFT and it's CBDC ends that entire history and the old will make way for the new.
As much as those that love their servitude and will find sorrow for their loss my hope is in a jubilee.
Written within the fabric of time.
But, I might be wrong.
Baaaa

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
Ok I will do my best to help.

Well, sorry to inform you that you failed miserably.

Feel free to try again, addressing the actual point being discussed...

Austin Steinbarts plan for financial security and independence?
Or the discussion you are imposing where we discuss how wrong we are and how right you are where you expect us to answer your questions to enhance your narrative?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl
Ok I will do my best to help.

Well, sorry to inform you that you failed miserably.

Feel free to try again, addressing the actual point being discussed...

I told you before I will adhere to your narcissism as seen fit.
This is the 3rd thread you did this and to honor other people's time, space and energy I will pm you everything you need.
Keep a keen eye on your private mail where the personal obsession interaction is provided.
Message incoming

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl

But now you have changes to consider.

Not without a firm foundational agreement, which we still do not have.

Which is why I do not consider crypto any real knowledge.

What the hell does 'crypto' have to do with anything that I have been discussing with Devoted?

Are you an alter-ego of his? I'm beginning to think so because you're making about as much )nonsense as he does.

As of right now there is no Petro dollar.

You're wrong... again...

The power of the petro dollar is waning, and may be mostly gone in the next 3-7 years, but it is far from 'gone'.

The USD cannot be pegged by something that is nothing.

Ummm... what? That made ZERO sense at all.

The gold backed Chinese yuan is the number 1 currency in trade for international exchange.

Rotflmao! Ok, whatever you say...

Weren't you the one who claimed that 'Ripple was backed by gold' too?

But, I might be wrong.

Don't worry, you are.

Baaaa

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl

Austin Steinbarts plan for financial security and independence?

What about it?

Oh... did you somehow get the wrong idea that that is the point that was being discussed that you bumbled into?

Hint: it wasn't. It was a very simple question about new money creation, loans, and interest.

Every time you type something it just bolsters my suspicion that you're just DevotedResearcher's alter-ego.

Or the discussion you are imposing where we discuss how wrong we are and how right you are where you expect us to answer your questions to enhance your narrative?

I refuse to engage in hyperbole or obfuscation, so sue me.

I told you before I will adhere to your narcissism as seen fit.

That statement is just gobbeldygook, as is most everything you type.

This is the 3rd thread you did this and to honor other people's time, space and energy I will pm you everything you need.
Keep a keen eye on your private mail where the personal obsession interaction is provided.
Message incoming

Spare yourself the trouble, I reject it utterly out of hand, in consideration of the source, and if you send me anything I will delete it without blinking.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
Austin Steinbarts plan for financial security and independence?

Oh, and he doesn't have a plan, just a bunch of well thought out complaints about the existing system that many people, myself included, could have put together.

Sorry, but I don't pay attention to crazy people who believe they are billion-airs (but aren't), believe the are getting instructions from their future self, and believe that they are the great and powerful 'Q'.

You have an awful lot in common with SJW's who were employed as Twitter censors.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: tanstaafl

Austin Steinbarts plan for financial security and independence?

What about it?

Oh... did you somehow get the wrong idea that that is the point that was being discussed that you bumbled into?

Hint: it wasn't. It was a very simple question about new money creation, loans, and interest.

Every time you type something it just bolsters my suspicion that you're just DevotedResearcher's alter-ego.

Or the discussion you are imposing where we discuss how wrong we are and how right you are where you expect us to answer your questions to enhance your narrative?

I refuse to engage in hyperbole or obfuscation, so sue me.

I told you before I will adhere to your narcissism as seen fit.

That statement is just gobbeldygook, as is most everything you type.

This is the 3rd thread you did this and to honor other people's time, space and energy I will pm you everything you need.
Keep a keen eye on your private mail where the personal obsession interaction is provided.
Message incoming

Spare yourself the trouble, I reject it utterly out of hand, in consideration of the source, and if you send me anything I will delete it without blinking.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You have an awful lot in common with SJW's who were employed as Twitter censors.

You... oh never mind, there's obviously no point...

Have a great day Devoted(ToNotBeingA)Researcher...

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm not muddying the waters. Rather, I'm explaining to you why they are muddy.

These are not made-up terms but describe what's actually happening.

Apparently, all the while you had a simplistic view of money creation taken from sources that you read decades ago (as you mentioned earlier). Since you prefer to stick to that idealistic view, then you a better off not continuing this discussion with me as you will only be wasting my time.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No, you weren't! And your line of argumentation is absurd. Here's why:

By "all loans" you are referring to a situation where no more loans that can be made, as any new loans would be part of "all loans." Well, if no more new loans can be made, then all present loans can't be paid. Thanks, Captain Obvious!

From there, all you need to do is figure out why financiers who make a living out of lending money no longer won't.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

... your line of argumentation is absurd. Here's why:

By "all loans" you are referring to a situation where no more loans that can be made,

Nope, not at all, you're just, again, refusing to keep it simple, probably because you don't want to admit I'm roght, which if you would just answer the question, you would be forced to do.

as any new loans would be part of "all loans."

Yes, but that is totally irrelevant to the question and the point the answer to it illustrates.

Well, if no more new loans can be made, then all present loans can't be paid. Thanks, Captain Obvious!

-sigh-

The point was simply that new loans are required to keep the ponzi scheme going.

From there, all you need to do is figure out why financiers who make a living out of lending money no longer won't.

They will likely never completely stop, but they will dramatically slow down as it becomes less and less profitable.

It almost sounds like you've never heard of the concept of contraction. Hint: it is the opposite of expansion.

But like I said, this is pointless, you're incapable of discussing things rationally.

At least I tried...

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm not muddying the waters. Rather, I'm explaining to you why they are muddy.

No, you are introducing things that are beyond the limited scope of the question I'm asking you.

Apparently, all the while you had a simplistic view of money creation taken from sources that you read decades ago (as you mentioned earlier).

Modern Money Mechanics is still 100% applicable today. Some of the minor variables may be a little different, but that would be irrelevant.

Since you prefer to stick to that idealistic view, then you a better off not continuing this discussion with me as you will only be wasting my time.

So, all you got is deflect and obfuscate in order to avoid answering a very simple question.

Got it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

These points are all part of money creation. See M2 and M3.

These are also part of money mechanics, esp. the money multiplier and endogenous money, or banks lending to each other, not following reserve ratios, etc., not to mention the fact that money is part of a large credit system.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Nope. Your two arguments are still wrong:

1. You were not referring to all loans.

2. You're point about all loans makes no sense.

You can't even defend yourself anymore! The only way for all loans to be mathematically impossible to pay is if there are no more new loans. In short, your arguing against yourself.

Now, you're admitting that financiers won't stop lending, which makes your point about mathematical impossibility irrelevant!

Your mental acrobatics is notable: you say something that makes no sense and then explain why it makes no sense.

Good grief.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl

The only way for all loans to be mathematically impossible to pay is if there are no more new loans.

Deja vu. I've already addressed your attempts to deflect and obfuscate the simple, fundamental point I'm making in this post, but I'll include the part relevant to this repeat of your attempt to twist my words and point, although I did strike/correct one word to make it more precise:

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

Will you acknowledge the difference? I doubt your ego will allow it.

In short, your arguing against yourself.

Except I'm not, I'm arguing against an arrogant online keyboard warrior with delusions of grandeur.

You know, I was simply trying to establish a baseline - a simple, fundamental precept upon which we might actually be able to have a conversation, and yes, where you might actually have something to teach me, that I might actually learn something about some of the other aspects to this insane system - but your arrogance has destroyed that opportunity.

I'll just go back to something I said earlier, which was my actual #ing point that you continue to ignore:

- Begin excerpt -
"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?"
- End excerpt -

Now, you're admitting that financiers won't stop lending,

I'm sure you fully understand that they can slow down without stopping completely; that when that happens it is called a contraction of the money supply; that they've manufactured these many times in the past; that when they do this, economists label them recessions; and that the most famous one of all was used as cover to steal all of the People's money (gold), and was so bad the economists coined a new term for it - 'The Great Depression'.

So, because I'm fairly sure you know all of this, I can only conclude that you're just trying to use all of the complexities of macro-economics - the details and inner-workings of which I freely acknowledged I'm mostly ignorant of - in order to try to score points. Yee-haw. You're a real legend in your own mind, you are.

which makes your point about mathematical impossibility irrelevant!

Irrelevant? Well... sure, I guess, if you consider the root cause of this evil monetary system that has been used to steal the wealth of the People in such a way that the vast majority don't even know it is happening (or, as Ford said, if they did, there would be a revolution before morning), then, I guess it is 'irrelevant'.

Your mental masturbation is obviously something you enjoy, so have at it.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: Nevercompromise

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

Ummm... well, now you've gone and done it, commented on something you obviously know ZERO about.

While each of the different 'cryptocurrencies' do in fact use blockchain technology to store all of their transactions in their own individual blockchains, they each use it in their own way, and their blockchains can in no way ever be called 'their content'. That is just silly ignorance talking.

Blockchain is just a technology that has certain features, and can be used for pretty much anything that has a need for storing data using one or more of said features.

We already have a new blockchain based store-of-value in bitcoin that has the potential to save the world from the clutches of the evil banksters who have been sucking the life blood - both literally and financially - out of the world's populations for centuries, millenia even, and hopefully we'll soon have a new blockchain based voting technology that will eliminate all of the rampant election fraud that has existed for many many decades, but only just been massively exposed in the last few election cycles.

I do agree with one thing though - #coins are 'funny money' and should be avoided by anyone/everyone at this stage. There were some very lucrative opportunities to make fortunes in the last 5-10 years on all of the #coins that evolved out of the bitcoin phenomena if you truly understood things and were smart about it. Sadly, I missed out because I pretty much slept through it until about 3 years ago.

At this stage, there is one and only one real, actual hope for saving our country.

Lastly, as for the commonly held ignorant belief that this technology is somehow bad for the environment because it 'expends electricity'...

Yes, it is technically true for cryptos that are based on 'proof of work', which is currently about 64% of them.

But you actually have to have an open mind to gain an understanding of why bitcoins electricity usage is actually not only not a problem, but it can actually 'save the world' according to Kevin O'Leary.

So you are upset at Austin, DevotedResearcher, monkeyluv, myself and anyone else that disagree that Bitcoin is going to save us all from economic despair if we do not support your get rich quick scheme in buying tulips from your tulip source.

No wonder your definition of a ponzi scheme is so inadequate.
You simply cannot see the forest for the tulips.

Bitcoin is obviously tulip mania.
And you are a poor example of a sellout for a few shekels.
So you are only here to sell bitcoin.
Got it.
Hypocrite
a reply to: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
So you are upset at Austin, DevotedResearcher, monkeyluv, myself and anyone else that disagree that Bitcoin is going to save us all from economic despair if we do not support your get rich quick scheme in buying tulips from your tulip source.

Are you drunk? What in gods name are you yammering about now?

I'm not upset with anyone, not selling anything, although I am mildly amused at the lengths some people will go to to avoid things that they don't like or disagree with.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Who are you kidding? Money is essentially a promissory note, and the same applies to crypto! The only thing that makes it legit are your "lucrative opportunities" to buy and sell electronic tokens which you still have to value in dollars.