[MERIT]

Our government and society will never be great until we reform the monetary system.

I know that I harp on this all the time, but no one listens or pays attention, so I'm gonna keep doing it.

Say that a country wants to put $1 BILLION into circulation. Well, they decided to let a privately owned, non-government institution print that $1 BILLION. Does that privately-owned, non-government institution just give the money to the country? NO! They lend it to them, at interest, say 5% [or any arbitrary number].

So, there is now $1 BILLION in circulation, but that country is now in debt, owing $1,050,000,000.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for that country to pay the money back, because that amount of money doesn't exist!

How is this beneficial to a nation?

Prove me wrong.

DwnWthVwls

Doesn't $50mil exist outside the US where products/services can be sold? Unless I'm missing something you'd only be correct if it was a closed system.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Lisnaholic

^ 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."

__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

MicShazam

I'm a fan of this statement.