I have a bad feeling about this. If Dan Harmon is a pedo, then isn't the whole plot of devaluing a currency from Rick and Morty ('turning a 1… into a 0!') almost a prelude, threat or 'warning'? The show often makes a lot of references to subtle conspiracy theories (such as the moon landing stage prop in 'Rickchurian Mortydate').

And I often find shows pre-empt an event.

Given the massive debt of the US ($140 trillion) it could be very well be argued that a dollar is literally worth zero. And the Simpsons episode that predicted Trump as president had Lisa Simpson afterwards talking about the US: "we're broke", with Trump being inferred as the previous president.

What's more disturbing is my opinion is that Lisa Simpson represents Hillary Clinton (Lisa is a liberal throughout the entire show). So there's a few overlapping plans: devaluing the dollar to worthlessness, and Hillary Clinton taking power after Trump.

Which means we would need to head off one or the other to ruin their plans.

Replacing the banking system with a stable structure is not an easy task. Not even within virtual environments (such as World of Warcraft where the value of gold coins has to be regulated) is keeping valuation of currency a thing.

Cryptocurrency is not perma-stable (and I wouldn't rest any laurels on it because it has a couple of flaws I haven't yet disclosed). Gold is problematic because everyone else possesses that and it can be stolen again (or decoupled).

Building a new system within the timelimit permitted (4 years assuming re-election win) is going to be insanely tricky, especially with partisan resistance.

Solving trade deficit is one way to go, but there does need to be a massive cap on military expenditure (US spends more than the prior three countries combined, and that includes China). I'm imagining there's a lot of financial waste. On the other side, you're doing all the R&D and places like China, Russia, France, israel etc are just stealing it, so you get no investment returns.

Thwarting IP theft is possible: you need to throw out so many red herrings and dangerous false positives (imagine the Chinese wasting many years trying to get bunk tech to work) that they end up spending more trying to steal it and make it work.

The other side of the fence is invest in better security in regards to how IPs are stored, reduce R&D spending on projects that the Chinese etc are gimping hard for (invest in R&D that they aren't interested in).

A new Fed has to be publicly accountable, and it's ability to print more money must be blockable by some means, whether public or presidential. 'Quantative Easing' is complete bullshit and why there's such inflation in the US currency right now.

But that printing cap can't work unless expenditure falls below revenue earnings. That either means greater taxes, or more spending cuts. Strategically you could do investment schemes to get businesses off the ground that repay the investments (so an indirect means of generating profit).

You could also ask for repayment of the bailout money handed out to banks by Obama. The system is not socialism for banks, and they should repay. Softly softly might have to be utilised, if you ask for everything upfront you could bankrupt and ruin everyone who has an account with them.

Essentially, you need to run the US government almost like a business (except it's profits are reinvested back into the public). Once in/out is stabilised, you can transition to a fed that can't easily print money and swap for a new currency.

But I'm oversimplifying things here.

The question of the day is where is this debt coming from?

My money says 'overcharged interest rate excess from the IMF'.

Kick whoever overcharges the interest rate in the balls (the IMF) and then proceed to a 0% interest system. If you can make IMF losses exceed that of the interest damage they're causing you, you might be able to get, an, ahem, 'rebate'.

Or you could just take the IMF out entirely. Your call.

Oh, and the IMF is holding a lot of other countries in debt too.

So it might be entirely possible you can get a few other countries and groups to agree to have a 'meet up' with the IMF, baseball bats included.

To paraphrase sci-fi's rogue Sam Starfall: 'a man with a small debt is in debt to the debtor, a man with a large debt has the debtor in debt to him'.

I mean, lets be honest here, no country could produce $140 trillion even with 100% of it's GDP geared towards it, so who is charging such insane interest rates? Who could the US possibly be in debt to given they have one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world?

I always found bankers to be out of touch with reality…

>>2385077

…Which is why the only thing you could try to discredit was grammar?

They just don't make shill quality the same these days.

>>2390423

The issue with trying to reattach currency back to gold or silver is that it means we haven't learnt our lesson - the fact that a single presidential decree (FDR's gold seizure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 - took 40+ years before it was rectified) means to re-establish the same system would be madness.

Even with the greatest legislation in the world (consider how the constitution's second amendment slips against the gun control crowd) there's nothing to say a good 20-40 years of chipping away or a war wouldn't just immediately undo it again.

Gold/silver coins addresses this (because the value is interwoven into the currency) but every government since time immemorial has practice the concept of debasing a currency (translation: they water down the gold/silver amounts until you get these bastard copper/nickel hybrids):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement

Even if you had a perfectly upright government, you still encounter two major problems:

1) Gold/silver's amount is not sufficient to supply all people with sufficient 'loose change' to do day-to-day transactions (currency deflation can just be as bad as inflation or hyperinflation)

2) Bad actors or enemies will 'subvert' the coinage by slowly replacing it with non-valuable goods over time.

From a futurist perspective, you've also got two other problems to consider:

1) Space developments will likely lead to gold becoming more abundant (lower value), and

2) Advancements in molecular engineering might also yield the ability to turn another element into gold, silver etc (admittedly unlikely, but if it happened, gold/silver would deflate in costs)

On the other side of the fence you've got the incoming upheaval of robotics, which is going to make a lot of people unemployed. In-fact, I've been purposefully sitting on automated store designs for nearly 4 years now because it would kill the retail industry as you know it (think theftless stores that you need not enter).

With massive unemployment from robotics (which is why Davros are trying their stupid 'universal basic income' - they're trying to head off a riot at the pass from the unhappy masses by paying them regardless of work status) you're got the death of the basics of finances as you know it.

Star Trek's vision of a cashless society doesn't seem too far off, either. Some of you might have noticed buses now take credit cards for payment? And there's a big push to go contactless.

Soon (I use the term relatively here: I consider within 20 years to be 'soon') there won't even be a coinage or set of notes to track against gold. Then what?

I could solve the issue UBI is trying to solve, but that would simply maintain the status quo for the rich, so there's tricky manouverings to be had. If we can dispatch the elite, I will more than happily do what I can to solve the impending economic crisis.

Whatever proposal you make for currency, always assume 50% of people will be trying to actively subvert it. If you can stop subversion, you've got a good currency.

>>2387085

Coins as they stand are worthless because they're made of copper/nickel and other cheap, worthless materials.

Coupled with the mass printing of notes, devalues what little they were worth even further.

I will say this - the death of cash is coming (whether I like that idea or not). The most valuable resource these days seems to be time, and fumbling about with, transferring, distributing, counting out, scanning//checking for fraud etc are all massive time wasters.

What infuriates me is Amazon have an excellent business model, but an extremely pisspoor set of ethics. In attempting to boycott, I found it practically impossible (I've been recently forced to use them again), because there's zero tangible competition or alternatives.

They don't have to micromanage cash or trade and thus operate extremely efficiently against retail stores (Amazon's only weakness is that it has a significant delay of up to several days in some cases of delivery, where-as a store has it 'there and then').

It's disappointing there isn't an ethical alternative to Amazon that can reinvest it's gains from systematic improvements and efficiency back into the community. The automated retail stores would actually allow a very effective fightback against Amazon, but as said, it would maintain rich status quo, so I can't deploy that proposal until I can be assured Davros' assholes aren't going to benefit from it.