Austin Steinbart's Proposal to Save America

That has actually, already been done.
The 120 Generals that recruited Trump to run for President knew DJT was a bankruptcy expert.
This was our countries 3rd bankruptcy and in that world it is 3 and done.
As this plays out we will be able to look back and see that DJT turned the script and by E.O. and BIS lawsuits he clawedback all the gold stolen from us and confiscated all the graft and usury committed against us by fraud.
E.O. 13838(I think) allowed the US to absorb all the assets back along with all accused interest accumulated over the last century+.
The new treaties and trade agreements reflect this as does the Federal Reserve ending and the SWIFT system in Europe now failing as the Petro dollar no longer exists as of this last year.
They attempted to save SWIFT with the CBDC but Putin and Xi ensured it's demise..

What happened on January 1,.2023 is big, really big.
As we go through devolution we rid ourselves of all the unelected bureaucrats that cannot ever be fired and make up the deep state.

That is the beauty of moving our Nations Capitol out of and away from D.C.
All the 3 letter agencies are private corporations.
If you move the E.P.A. to Idaho let's say.
Then as you staff it you just do not rehire the unelected beurocrats. They are all protected within the 10 square miles that is D.C. which is the Federal corporation.
This is the reason Washington DC has the highest millionaires per Capita in the US.
It would be nice if this also ends the S.E.S. by the same tactic.
I think it does.

I really enjoy these threads.
I always thought Austin had a significant part in the Q world.
He got rejected by most of the anons.
His plan from this website originated elsewhere but he is showing he is very intelligent and chosen well.
Has he talked of moving Treasury Dept. to Reno Nv.?
Now that the FED is dead and the IRS now absorbed by Treasury, January 1 and the new trade agreements kickoff the new currencies.
The ports in Long Beach are showing this has happened.
China now has 25% Tarrif on all imports and key exports are now being cancelled and sold in the USA.
As much as I wish they would just announce a trigger event that starts at midnight or something that is not how it's done.
It is a slow rollout.
After the civil war it took about 20 years to roll out the new treaties and currency.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher

originally posted by: tanstaafl

How do you think we got to the point of being 30+ trillion in debt?

The system is designed to fail. It is the biggest pyramid scheme in history, and we fell for it, and most of us apparently still cannot comprehend it.

That is the rationale for Mr. Steinbart's recommendation that the U.S. do what corporations do—declare bankruptcy.

qintel.pro...

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: Nevercompromise

Money is not printed arbitrarily; rather, it's borrowed into existence. That's why when the government prints money, then the amount is listed as a liability.

The U.S. probably can't follow Iceland because the government is owned by Wall Street.

You are correct in describing our current monetary system where digital clicks add money to the debt system.
So when you combine a fiat currency with Fractional Reserve Lending you create a Never-pay-off-debt system where you are given a lifetime credit based upon our birth certificate.

This is seen in the genius that is in John Nash. The movie, A Beautiful Mind is about him.
He came up with most of what we now know as game theory.
He talks of zero sum games and the Prisoners Dilemma which is the part I am addressing.
He recognized the results of this never pay back debt system where we are never in the black, always in the red debt-slave money system and devised a way to navigate through it effectively.
If you imagine a graph with black being above zero and red below you can envision our plight.
We are always in debt, by design.
When you do googles on him they never talk of it all being our reality but as theory only.
You simply have to recognize it in order to extrapolate from it.
But our new world coming is not going to be based upon fiat.
The Petro dollar is dead and a system based upon gdp vs. debt backed by 10% metals and assets is what is at hand via the QFS.

So the short story is, yes we can follow Iceland's example.
We simply give the Rothschild banks back all their assets including their debts they incurred upon us in the trap system they created.
In these trade agreements negotiated in 2017, 2018 that just went into effect January 1 that now includes 120 Nations the USA had to prove we could all do it without the FED.
IMHO, deals done

Oh, I have to add this.
They have to crash the stocks and bonds system.
It is wholly owned by the Rothschild's banks.
It is criminal to make money this way as it destroys any currency that is fungible.
Fungible, my 2nd favorite words next to odious.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
His plan could do with some more details around the 'decentalized finance' aspects, [to include the use of bitcoin,] since that perfectly fulfills that most important aspect of our problem.

I guess he disagrees with you:

qintel.pro...

Tell the truth.
Our baby has grown up.
I think Austin has played a significant part, his part in the Q plan has he not?
His role is certainly matured from when he graced your threads in the beginning.

originally posted by: dashen
Is OP Austin Steinbart?

Hi baby Q.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: tanstaafl
I guess he disagrees with you:

Nothing there is in disagreement except 'tangible', and the benefits of bitcoin far outweigh that one issue that many people do have a hard time getting around. I understand it because I used to be 100% precious metals backed coinage, although my position was different from most.

That said, once I got my head around bitcoin, I was all in, as is most anyone who actually studies it without major prejudices and biases front and center.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The fact is, it's digital, correct?

I believe Catherine Austin Fitts advises against it.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: tanstaafl

The fact is, it's digital, correct?

Yes, so? I didn't see anything against 'digital'...

I believe Catherine Austin Fitts advises against it.

So what? She likely hasn't researched it enough to know squat about it. She probably lumps it in with other cypto's in general, which is the first sign that someone is clueless about bitcoin.

I don't care what anyone else thinks about it, I've researched it enough to have developed my own opinion of it, independent of anyone else.

Michael Saylor was also 100% against it in the beginning - until he finally decided to research it. His hour+ long interview with Tucker Carlso is a great starting place for anyone wanting to honestly go down the rabbit hole.

I can assure you 100% it is not Bitcoin.
I agree with many that believe Bitcoin tanks to zero along with 98% of crypto.

I believe the crypto that will be used for central banking is XRP Ripple, which is backed 10% in physical gold.

This is speculation but not speculation about Bitcoin which will be worthless when exposed.
Bitcoin is probably what the Rothschild's will be using within their soon to be private banks since it was their laundering tool along with the CCP.

In the QFS there will be Blockchain crypto. Which ones is anyone's guess.
But I would bank on David Schwartz having some keen insights since he patented the idea decades ago

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: tanstaafl
I guess he disagrees with you:

Nothing there is in disagreement except 'tangible', and the benefits of bitcoin far outweigh that one issue that many people do have a hard time getting around. I understand it because I used to be 100% precious metals backed coinage, although my position was different from most.

That said, once I got my head around bitcoin, I was all in, as is most anyone who actually studies it without major prejudices and biases front and center.

Replace your search from tangible to fungible and you will find more light.

You just said that about Catherine Austin Fitts?
Hurry and google it while you can still edit your post

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: tanstaafl

The fact is, it's digital, correct?

Yes, so? I didn't see anything against 'digital'...

I believe Catherine Austin Fitts advises against it.

So what? She likely hasn't researched it enough to know squat about it. She probably lumps it in with other cypto's in general, which is the first sign that someone is clueless about bitcoin.

I don't care what anyone else thinks about it, I've researched it enough to have developed my own opinion of it, independent of anyone else.

Michael Saylor was also 100% against it in the beginning - until he finally decided to research it. His hour+ long interview with Tucker Carlso is a great starting place for anyone wanting to honestly go down the rabbit hole.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
I can assure you 100% it is not Bitcoin.

I didn't say it was. I said it should be. Nothing else - and I mean nothing else - evebn comes close to fulfilling the requirement.

I agree with many that believe Bitcoin tanks to zero along with 98% of crypto.

And I understand that anyone who lumps bitcoin in with cryptos in general doesn't know anything about bitcoin or cypto in general.

I believe the crypto that will be used for central banking is XRP Ripple, which is backed 10% in physical gold.

I used to think XRP might be better, before I actually started learning about bitcoin and crypto in general. Now I understand that XRP is just another unregistered security, with one difference - they might, just might be willing to jump through all of the hoops necessary to register as a security. But it is not and never will be a commodity like bitcoin.

The vast majority if not all other cryptos will either die immediately, or slowly wither and die, once they are all officially and legally declared unregistered securities and give some grace period to either register or cease doing business in the USA.

This is speculation but not speculation about Bitcoin which will be worthless when exposed.

Exposed as... what? Do tell.

Bitcoin is probably what the Rothschild's will be using within their soon to be private banks since it was their laundering tool along with the CCP.

No worries, one of the best things about bitcoin is that it is the only truly permissionless, inflation proof asset class in existence.

In the QFS there will be Blockchain crypto. Which ones is anyone's guess.

If there is such a thing, bitcoin is the only real possibility.

But I would bank on David Schwartz having some keen insights since he patented the idea decades ago

His general patent on general distributed computing doesn't hold a candle to the gift that Satoshi gace to the world.

I get it, I guess you own a lot of XRP so really want it to be 'the one'...

Replace your search from tangible to fungible and you will find more light.

All cryptos with transparent prices on exchanges and coin price aggregator sites are fungible.

So, if you want to make a point, best to be less cryptic (pun intended),

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You just said that about Catherine Austin Fitts?

Yeppers... why? Is she your current God of the day?

Hurry and google it while you can still edit your post

Rotflmao! What for? A quick google, and listening to a few minutes of a very recent interview

just backs up what I thought might be the case. She lumps bitcoin in with other cryptos, which means she either doesn't know anything about bitcoin - which means she is ignorant about it but talking as if she isn't - or she is intentionally conflating them, which means she has lees than honorable intentions. She also goes on and on about how 'complicated' it is (she does on and on about potential tax implications, the FTX scam/fisaco, etc), and 'what if you can't remember your password!', and all the other things that of course are important, but are also common sensical things that everyone should understand before getting involved.

The reality is, anyone that actually does their due diligence understands that bitcoin is the only one that will not be declared an unregistered security (because it doesn't fit ANY of the criteria, while all of the others fit essentially ALL of the criteria) of a security.

The time where you can make millions pumping and dumping worthless cryptos is almost over (the fat lady sings when the SEC/FTC announce new regulations declaring all cyptos but bitcoin as unregistered securities and gives them their 30/60/80 days or whatever grace period to get registered), and the age of bitcoin is fast approaching.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
a reply to: monkeyluv
What is all the talk about restoring the Constitution of the mandates are not adhered to.
Congress is mandated to print the money, not borrow it.

No, actually, they are delegated the power to Coin money, not Print OR borrow it.

Iceland showed the way in 2008, 2009.
They did not bail out the bankers. They arrested them for bribing the politicians.
They attributed all the debts acquired by the corruption and deceit to the private central bankers deeming it odious debt because they lied and tricked the people to accept the debt by fraud.
Arrest the bankers, give them their debt back, and have Congress print the money debt free per their Constitutional mandate.

You only payback the debt if your politicians got paid enough to trick the people into accepting their debt.
It is odious (my favorite words of all time)

Well, we have a Constitutional problem regarding the debt that poses a problem with the idea of 'bankrupting' against it...

The 14th Amendment, Section 4:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Of course, you could argue that these debts were incurred "in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States", and I think it is a good argument, but... who not sure how the Chinese would feel about that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I know, that is the problem.

That's good. I hope you were able to answer your own question, then.

Every 'money-multiplier' loan that is made is loaned out at interest.

Right. And you point is....?

The interest you require to pay back that loan was not created, only the principle.

It was. That's why I was able to pay it. Also, it's "principal."

How do you think we got to the point of being 30+ trillion in debt?

Scroll up and review what you argue you already know. Also, add to that "Triffin dilemma." Unless you "know" that, too.

And don't forget $90 trillion in total debt plus $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Hopefully, once you figure out how so much debt was created, then you'll figure out how interest is created.

The system is designed to fail. It is the biggest pyramid scheme in history, and we fell for it, and most of us apparently still cannot comprehend it.

Of course, no one is discounting that. But how was there one in the first place if, you kept insisting, interest on debt can never be paid? It's been paid for centuries.

"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."
Henry Ford

Cute. Now, tell me what I don't know.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The U.S. probably can't follow Iceland because the government is owned by Wall Street.

It is true that on the Federal government level, things are that bad.

Hopefully as more and more citizens wake up and join the liberty movement, people will start considering Steinbart's and Santilli's recommendations as a matter of survival.

If people will just stop the left-right mud-slinging, that would be a start.

It's been bad across the board.

seekingalpha.com...

static.seekingalpha.com...

And I don't think there will be a "liberty movement" because personal debt, consumer spending, etc., are based on the same heavy dependence on borrowing and spending.

Why's that happening? Look up the Triffin dilemma.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl
That's good. I hope you were able to answer your own question, then.

You are (apparently still) confused. When I said "that is the problem", it was in response to your parting "I don't see the point" 'of asking your banker if any new loans were made that would cover the interest on the loan you took out'.

In other words, either you don't understand what we're talking about, or you do and you're just trying to make yourself look smarter than you are, or you simply don't understand that you don't understand what you're talking about.

It was. That's why I was able to pay it.

Said one of the victims of the pyramid scheme that wasn't caught with their pants down.

The fact that you don't even recognize the absurdity of that response is (one of) your (many) problem(s).

Also, it's "principal."

Yeah, principle vs principal is one of the few words I get mixed sometimes, I hope it gave you a warm-n-fuzzy being able to actually get at least one thing right in our discourse.

Scroll up and review what you argue you already know.

So you can't answer it. Got it.

Also, add to that "Triffin dilemma." Unless you "know" that, too.

I hadn't heard of it before, but I see it is just one of the many terms that had to be invented to explain problems and discrepancies with the criminal ponzi/pyramid scheme that is our debt based monetary system.

Regardless - what is your point in bringing it up (other than the fun of using a fancy word/term of art that makes you feel smarter than you actually are)?

And don't forget $90 trillion in total debt plus $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Yes, I didn't drag all of that into the discussion because it isn't necessary to understand the point being discussed, but since you did, apparently you also don't recognize that it just supports the reality of what I'm saying.

I'll rephrase it adding in some details (that I consider obvious) to make it more precise and complete (and easier to understand - you're welcome):

The 'money' (physical or digital) required to ultimately pay the interest on any/all new money that is placed into circulation - meaning, each and every new loan made by a Federal Reserve bank member to an individual (personal or commercial) - is itself never created. This means the 'money' needed to ultimately pay the interest must come from more new money (aka loans). This process is the simplest description of the spiraling and ever-increasing debt cycle that is our monetary system, it is the very definition of 'fractional reserve banking' and a debt based monetary system... and is in fact the actual definition of a ponzi/pyramid scheme, the biggest one ever perpetrated in the history of mankind.

Hopefully, once you figure out how so much debt was created, then you'll figure out how interest is created.

I already know that the interest isn't created, something you have yet to comprehend.

Of course, no one is discounting that. But how was there one in the first place if, you kept insisting, interest on debt can never be paid? It's been paid for centuries.

So, I'm genuinely curious - is it intentional, or are you just naturally obtuse?

I never said that you individually cannot pay off a loan, all of it, principal and interest. I also never said that 'payments cannot be made on the national debt' on an ongoing basis. If that is what you have been arguing against, then you are arguing against something you made up in your own mind.

I now suspect that either a) we are actually in agreement on this point but it is something you have never even considered, b) you simply didn't (and still don't?) understand what I was saying for whatever reason, or c) you're just arguing to try to make yourself look and feel smarter than you actually are (a very common sign of an ivy schfool graduate).

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and address what I actually said, which I rephrased and clarified for you two paragraphs above.

Cute. Now, tell me what I don't know.

Yes, that is a dilemma - to get someone to see that they don't know what it is they don't know.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

You are (apparently still) confused. When I said "that is the problem", it was in response to your parting "I don't see the point" 'of asking your banker if any new loans were made that would cover the interest on the loan you took out'.

In other words, either you don't understand what we're talking about, or you do and you're just trying to make yourself look smarter than you are, or you simply don't understand that you don't understand what you're talking about.

I'm responding to this statement:

"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 is not loaned into existence at interest. Rather, it is loaned into existence.

It's not the interest that's created but the money needed to pay for the interest that's created. It's created either at the same time by someone making a loan elsewhere, created by someone who made a loan made before, or will be created by someone who will make a loan a few minutes later.

Somehow that money will go to me when someone buys from my business. Then I can use it to pay for the interest plus part of the debt.

That's why there's no such thing as a physical impossibility of ever paying off a loan plus interest. People have been borrowing and paying back loans with interest for centuries.

So, you want to know exactly where that money I used to pay off the interest come from? That's my second response.

Said one of the victims of the pyramid scheme that wasn't caught with their pants down.

It doesn't matter, as that disproves your claim of "creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off."

The fact that you don't even recognize the absurdity of that response is (one of) your (many) problem(s).

The point isn't that I don't recognize the absurdity of my response. It's that you thought along that loans and interest can never be paid. They have been paid for centuries.

Yeah, principle vs principal is one of the few words I get mixed sometimes, I hope it gave you a warm-n-fuzzy being able to actually get at least one thing right in our discourse.

I think your problems are worse. I'll find out in your subsequent posts.

So you can't answer it. Got it.

Look up the terms I mentioned to you earlier. That partly explains why the claim of "creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off" is not true. Loans with interest have been paid off throughout history.

I hadn't heard of it before, but I see it is just one of the many terms that had to be invented to explain problems and discrepancies with the criminal ponzi/pyramid scheme that is our debt based monetary system.

It's not an invention.

Regardless - what is your point in bringing it up (other than the fun of using a fancy word/term of art that makes you feel smarter than you actually are)?

Study and you'll know.

Yes, I didn't drag all of that into the discussion because it isn't necessary to understand the point being discussed, but since you did, apparently you also don't recognize that it just supports the reality of what I'm saying.

It's actually important because it contradicts your claim about "creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off". If your point is true, then total debt cannot go up.

I'll rephrase it adding in some details (that I consider obvious) to make it more precise and complete (and easier to understand - you're welcome):

The 'money' (physical or digital) required to ultimately pay the interest on any/all new money that is placed into circulation - meaning, each and every new loan made by a Federal Reserve bank member to an individual (personal or commercial) - is itself never created. This means the 'money' needed to ultimately pay the interest must come from more new money (aka loans). This process is the simplest description of the spiraling and ever-increasing debt cycle that is our monetary system, it is the very definition of 'fractional reserve banking' and a debt based monetary system... and is in fact the actual definition of a ponzi/pyramid scheme, the biggest one ever perpetrated in the history of mankind.

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point. The money needed to pay the interest is created through new loans. That's why there's no "physical impossibility of ever paying it off".

I already know that the interest isn't created, something you have yet to comprehend.

You're contradicting yourself again! You just pointed out that it's created through new loans.

So, I'm genuinely curious - is it intentional, or are you just naturally obtuse?

You need to ask yourself that question, as you can't make up your mind. Interest isn't created, which explains "the physical impossibility of ever paying...off" a loan with interest. And yet loans with interest have been paid for for centuries because interest is created through new loans.

I never said that you individually cannot pay off a loan, all of it, principal and interest. I also never said that 'payments cannot be made on the national debt' on an ongoing basis. If that is what you have been arguing against, then you are arguing against something you made up in your own mind.

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."

That's not true. The loan can be paid off through money from loans made before that loan was made, through loans made somewhere else and simultaneously, or from loans made in the future.

I now suspect that either a) we are actually in agreement on this point but it is something you have never even considered, b) you simply didn't (and still don't?) understand what I was saying for whatever reason, or c) you're just arguing to try to make yourself look and feel smarter than you actually are (a very common sign of an ivy schfool graduate).

It's (a). The problem is your thesis: "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 money used to pay for interest and even part of the loan can be created before, during, or after the loan is made because other people also make loans. Thus, it is not physically impossible to ever pay off loans and interest, as people have been doing that for centuries.

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and address what I actually said, which I rephrased and clarified for you two paragraphs above.

You have a writing problem. You need to work on it.

Yes, that is a dilemma - to get someone to see that they don't know what it is they don't know.

And what is it that I don't know?

a reply to: DevotedResearcher

I completely agree with your statements about the federal government and the states. But I see no solution to the corruption other than breaking up the US, letting the States go their own way. There really are no longer any shared, commonly held ideas in the US. Identity politics and tribalism have seen to that. There are no shared cultural values. The coasts are totally Marxist, the South is a ruined mess. There's no social or national cohesion. In fact, in many parts of the US, Spanish is all but the "official" language.

The center will not hold and it's long past time for any reunification. Corrupted election processes have robbed officials elected to federal office of meaningful political capital while calls for help from the southern border to DC go unanswered. The national military is so confused, they can't even protect national airspace, all the while drug cartels take over major cities.

Think about it. Do you really want to live under the thumb of a giant bureaucracy that embraces infanticide and forced euthanasia?

The worst part of this is that as the crumbling accelerates, the more desperate they will become to hold on to power and the greater the likelihood that they will embrace draconian authoritarianism. They are quite obviously leaning in that direction.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl
I'm responding to this statement:

"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 is not loaned into existence at interest. Rather, it is loaned into existence.

[sarc]Ah! So, you have a source for interest free loans! Man, I sure wish you'd share that source with me, although I doubt you'll be willing to do that, which is understandable.[/sarc]

It's not the interest that's created but the money needed to pay for the interest that's created.

Where? When the loan is made, you get the principal deposited into an account for your use/benefit.

Where is the interested deposited, and for whose benefit is it?

It's created either at the same time by someone making a loan elsewhere, created by someone who made a loan made before, or will be created by someone who will make a loan a few minutes later.

Ah, I see, so one or more of those loans are from your super-duper-secret interest-free loan source. Got it.

Somehow that money will go to me when someone buys from my business. Then I can use it to pay for the interest plus part of the debt.

Somehow. Got it.

That's why there's no such thing as a physical impossibility of ever paying off a loan plus interest. People have been borrowing and paying back loans with interest for centuries.

Like I said before, I wasn't talking about one single individual loan being paid off, or principal+interest payments being made.

Again, you're being obtuse, intentionally or not.

It doesn't matter, as that disproves your claim of "creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off."

No, it actually doesn't.

Otherwise, by all means, tell me where the 'money' to pay off the hundreds of trillions of national debt will come from.

No, hurry, I won't hold my breath.

It's not an invention.

So what is it? Hint: all words are inventions.

Study and you'll know.

First you'd have to give me a reason to believe that I didn't understand something thus needed to study it.

I'm still waiting for you to say something relevant to the point being discussed.

It's actually important because it contradicts your claim about "creating the physical impossibility of ever paying it off". If your point is true, then total debt cannot go up.

Well, that is back-asswards.

The fact that my point is true is precisely why the national debt is perpetually growing and can never be prepaid.

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point.

Actually, in your next statement, you're ignoring a very simple fact that is the cause of your incredibly nonsensical argument...

The money needed to pay the interest is created through new loans.

Each of which also require interest to be fully repaid. This is precisely the source of the problem.

That's why there's no "physical impossibility of ever paying it off".

Again, bass-ackwards. That is precisely what creates the physical impossibility of it ever being paid off.

You're contradicting yourself again! You just pointed out that it's created through new loans.

Nope, sorry, your confusion is epic, really.

The new loans are what allows the ponzi/pyramid scheme to continue, in eth eexact same way that new suckers are what allowed Bernie Madoff to continue his ponzi scheme for so long.

loans with interest have been paid for for centuries

Yes, and many many haven't - or I guess you've never heard of bankruptcy (one of the primary concepts in this thread).
But that is actually irrelevant to the primary point which is the perpetually growing national debt.

Again, I'm not talking primarily about simple private loans, I'm talking first and foremost about the national debt.

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."

Yes - conceptually - meaning, the national debt. This thread, and our entire back and forth was in terms of our monetary system - or at least I ass-u-me-d that to be the case.

I will accept partial responsibility for not actually using those two words in the very beginning to clarify that I was not talking about individual loans. The fact that I was talking about the national debt in its entirety was (or should have been in my opinion) obvious, especially after so much back and forth, but apparently it wasn't obvious to you - unless of course your intention was to be as pedantic as possible just to try to make yourself look smarter than you actually are (which again is a typical characteristic of an ivy schfool graduate), so, that was my mistake,- giving you the benefit of the doubt.

So, to all, my apologies, for the huge waste of everyone's time...

The money used to pay for interest and even part of the loan can be created before, during, or after the loan is made because other people also make loans.

And as I said before, unless you have a super-duper-secret source for interest-free loans, each and every one of those loans just adds principal to the national debt without adding into circulation the necessary FRNs/digital credits that would ne needed to fully pay off said principal.

And what is it that I don't know?

Objection: facts already in evidence.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
[sarc]Ah! So, you have a source for interest free loans! Man, I sure wish you'd share that source with me, although I doubt you'll be willing to do that, which is understandable.[/sarc]

What is wrong with you? I was not referring to interest-free loans! One more time:

I buy a car using a bank loan, with payments made monthly including interest. Where did I get the money to pay for the interest? I got it from profits I earned from products I sold from my business. Where did the buyer get the money to pay the products? From other loans.

Where? When the loan is made, you get the principal deposited into an account for your use/benefit.

Sigh. From other loans that other people make.

Where is the interested deposited, and for whose benefit is it?

In banks, and for the benefit of the one charging the interest, which are also banks.

Good grief.

Ah, I see, so one or more of those loans are from your super-duper-secret interest-free loan source. Got it.

No, it's also from other loans involving interest.

Again, look up "money multiplier," "endogenous money," and even "credit."

Somehow. Got it.

Yes, and that's because banks operate in a closed system.

Like I said before, I wasn't talking about one single individual loan being paid off, or principal+interest payments being made.

What are you talking about, then?

Again, you're being obtuse, intentionally or not.

Again, look up the terms I've shared with you.

No, it actually doesn't.

It does. New loans, remember? You even stated it yourself!

Otherwise, by all means, tell me where the 'money' to pay off the hundreds of trillions of national debt will come from.

No, hurry, I won't hold my breath.

New loans. LOL.

So what is it? Hint: all words are inventions.

The fact that you're asking me shows that you thought I invented the term but it turns out you don't know what it means!

The Triffin dilemma refers to the phenomenon of a country's currency used as a global reserve. It eventually experiences chronic trade deficits because its exports are too expensive and imports too cheap. To make up for the deficit it borrows and spends heavily, which it can do because its currency is in demand globally.

That's why the U.S. is able to rack up tremendous amounts of debt.

First you'd have to give me a reason to believe that I didn't understand something thus needed to study it.

I'm still waiting for you to say something relevant to the point being discussed.

I just threw you a bone and defined one of the terms for you. You need to study the rest by yourself. Stop asking to be spoonfed.

Well, that is back-asswards.

The fact that my point is true is precisely why the national debt is perpetually growing and can never be prepaid.

Loans are not prepaid.

Actually, in your next statement, you're ignoring a very simple fact that is the cause of your incredibly nonsensical argument...

Each of which also require interest to be fully repaid. This is precisely the source of the problem.

LOL. Other people can make loans while yours is still being paid. Loans can be made even before you make a loan. Loans can be made even while you're making a loan.

Do you now understand why the claim that it is physically impossible to pay for interest is wrong? People have been doing this for centuries.

Again, bass-ackwards. That is precisely what creates the physical impossibility of it ever being paid off.

No. People have been able to pay off loans with interest for centuries. That's because lots of people make lots of loans. Look up "new loans."

Nope, sorry, your confusion is epic, really.

The new loans are what allows the ponzi/pyramid scheme to continue, in eth eexact same way that new suckers are what allowed Bernie Madoff to continue his ponzi scheme for so long.

What kind of discussion is this? You just contradicted yourself again! Didn't we go over this, already? I'm able to pay for the loan I made because others made loans. "New loans." Get it?

Now, you mentioned earlier that I'm part of the same ponzi scheme. Are you implying that you're not? If so, then that means you don't use money or credit.

Yes, and many many haven't - or I guess you've never heard of bankruptcy (one of the primary concepts in this thread).
But that is actually irrelevant to the primary point which is the perpetually growing national debt.

Look, genius, the fact that not only the national debt but debt in generally is "perpetually growing" disproves your argument. Get it? If it's physically impossible to pay off loans, then debt can't grow at all!

Again, I'm not talking primarily about simple private loans, I'm talking first and foremost about the national debt.

You were NOT referring to the national debt but loans with interest. That includes loans made by everyone.

Yes - conceptually - meaning, the national debt. This thread, and our entire back and forth was in terms of our monetary system - or at least I ass-u-me-d that to be the case.

The monetary system is NOT limited to national debt.

I will accept partial responsibility for not actually using those two words in the very beginning to clarify that I was not talking about individual loans. The fact that I was talking about the national debt in its entirety was (or should have been in my opinion) obvious, especially after so much back and forth, but apparently it wasn't obvious to you - unless of course your intention was to be as pedantic as possible just to try to make yourself look smarter than you actually are (which again is a typical characteristic of an ivy schfool graduate), so, that was my mistake,- giving you the benefit of the doubt.

So, to all, my apologies, for the huge waste of everyone's time...

Do you remember mentioning Bernie Madoff earlier? He was not a government official and what he did did not involve national debt.

In short, what you think involves only national debt goes beyond it. That's why you need to study the terms I gave you earlier.

Are you beginning to understand my point now?

And as I said before, unless you have a super-duper-secret source for interest-free loans, each and every one of those loans just adds principal to the national debt without adding into circulation the necessary FRNs/digital credits that would ne needed to fully pay off said principal.

And what is it that I don't know?

Objection: facts already in evidence.

Apparently, you didn't know: the new loans you are talking about aren't interest-free, but they are made without using the same money pool. Look up "money multiplier."

They are not made using the same bank. Look up "endogenous money."

They are in various cases not even made with reserve requirement restrictions. Look up "credit," "financial instruments," etc.

Don't believe me? Compare money base with M2.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: tanstaafl
What is wrong with you?

Not a thing... what's wrong with you?

I was not referring to interest-free loans!

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.

Sigh. From other loans that other people make.

-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.

New loans. LOL.

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

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

The fact that you're asking me shows that you thought I invented the term

Rotflmao! Not even close...

That's why the U.S. is able to rack up tremendous amounts of debt.

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'.

Loans are not prepaid.

Ummm... duh?

Do you now understand why the claim that it is physically impossible to pay for interest is wrong?

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.

People have been able to pay off loans with interest for centuries.

I agree, but that is irrelevant.

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

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.

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?

You were NOT referring to the national debt

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.

but loans with interest.

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.

The monetary system is NOT limited to national debt.

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

Do you remember mentioning Bernie Madoff earlier? He was not a government official and what he did did not involve national debt.

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

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

In short, what you think involves only national debt goes beyond it.

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

Are you beginning to understand my point now?

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