^ To me the most doubtful element in [MERIT]'s model is the bit in bold below:-
^ I don't think that any country in the world pays their printers $100 every time they print a $100 bill. I imagine that printing charges are related to printing costs, not, as [MERIT] suggests, the face value of what they print.

^ That's very commendable! Well done. When I've voted, it's almost always been in the local Public Library or a school that's been commandeered for the purpose = a ten-min stroll out of my way as I walk between station and house on my way home from work. A pretty agreeable way to assert your civic rights.

^ Yes, Psy-Fi, it all became a partisan issue when Trump claimed that 3 million people fraudulently voted in 2016. ( No evidence to support this has been found despite a Trump-ordered govmnt investigation. ) And as marginalized citizens are more likely to vote Democrat, there is an unmistakeable bias to all the voter registration arguments.

None the less, the weight of evidence seems to support the Dem position: thousands of voters are being discouraged by Republican governors as against dozens of voter-fraud cases. Plus, which side should we be on? The side that says facilities should be available so that every citizen can vote without let or hinderance, or the side that puts up geographical or bureaucratic obstacles that make voting difficult? As one Dem succinctly put it, "If a candidate is making it difficult for people to vote, you shouldn't vote for him."

I'm a fan of this statement.

Hey people who don't vote in midterms, you really should vote in the midterms.

Ok, I'll see if I can get American citizenship in time to vote.

Yeah, get right on that.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7buc...fPtC/giphy.gif

It IS a closed system in the sense that virtually all countries have a Rothschild-controlled central bank, rather than printing their own currency. And I guess it depends on what the people who control the Federal Reserve are willing to accept as payment.

In the old days, China would only accept gold as payment from buyers on the Silk Road. That is why they prospered.

It's defintely an interesting and intriguing topic.

I chose 5% as an example. The percentage is completely arbitrary to the point, which is apparently going over your head.

Under the current set-up, it is IMPOSSIBLE to re-pay the global debt. The amount of global currency that exists is LESS THAN the amount of currency owed to the banks that loaned that currency to the countries.

Read that twice, slowly, and let it sink in.

I'll vouch for you.

It sounds more like a reiteration from that 20 minutes of Zeitgeist but idk enough to have an opinion.

I haven't watched that 101 sh*t in a [ra]coon's age.

^ No, I was able to understand what you meant by "say 5%", I could even understand your arithmetic, which is why I didn't comment on either item.

^ What with the cost of ink, paper and printing machine, how much does it cost to print a $100 bill? Let's say $1. That's approximately what a government will pay a printer to make a $100 bill. The government doesn't have to pay a hundred dollars just because that is what's written on the bill. That's the part of your explanation for burgeoning government debt that I was questioning. 5% is a fine number, but isn't relevant because it's an interest rate on a loan which doesn't exist: governments don't have to borrow money from printers in order to have money printed. It's probably a very cheap process for them, compared with building a hospital or airport for example.

The government isn't getting the currency simply for the cost of parts and labor. If the mint spends a nickel to print a $100 bill, they don't have a piece of paper worth a nickel, they have a piece of paper worth $100. The central banks who loan the currency to the governments don't view it is a 5 cent piece of paper, they view it as a $100 asset, and lend it out as so.