Search Results
7/18/2025, 1:31:00 PM
>>510710850
The third paper was weak, but the first of its kind to suggest the abolition of the Fed. One of the paper’s shortcomings detailed in an excerpt from the Part 3 of 4 thread:
*************** I pause the thread here to point out another egregious error right in the middle of the economic paper being examined. As I have noted before in past threads, such high school-tier errors are so bad that it looks as though these economics papers are not even proofread at all.
Picrel is the error and the following text is what I think the author was trying to convey:
>If government issues too much paper currency, then citizens will doubt the gold peg and turn in their paper for gold from their banks, and these Tier 2 banks, in turn, will then redeem that same paper from the US Treasury and drain the government’s gold
Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.
To make such an egregious error in the most important sentence in the entire paper begs the question, was it on purpose, mocking the public or are they trying to trick the public into turning in their gold again lololol?
The error in pic related is an example that NO ONE is watching or correcting these people. This author worked for Trump as an economic advisor in his first term. These are the people running the show. This is who we have to rely on to fix things and that is not good. This is why we must be vigilant even more so now, not to just let them install whatever fuck they think b/c THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The third paper was weak, but the first of its kind to suggest the abolition of the Fed. One of the paper’s shortcomings detailed in an excerpt from the Part 3 of 4 thread:
*************** I pause the thread here to point out another egregious error right in the middle of the economic paper being examined. As I have noted before in past threads, such high school-tier errors are so bad that it looks as though these economics papers are not even proofread at all.
Picrel is the error and the following text is what I think the author was trying to convey:
>If government issues too much paper currency, then citizens will doubt the gold peg and turn in their paper for gold from their banks, and these Tier 2 banks, in turn, will then redeem that same paper from the US Treasury and drain the government’s gold
Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.
To make such an egregious error in the most important sentence in the entire paper begs the question, was it on purpose, mocking the public or are they trying to trick the public into turning in their gold again lololol?
The error in pic related is an example that NO ONE is watching or correcting these people. This author worked for Trump as an economic advisor in his first term. These are the people running the show. This is who we have to rely on to fix things and that is not good. This is why we must be vigilant even more so now, not to just let them install whatever fuck they think b/c THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
7/13/2025, 9:29:21 PM
The third paper was weak, but the first of its kind to suggest the abolition of the Fed. One of the paper’s shortcomings detailed in an excerpt from the Part 3 of 4 thread:
*************** I pause the thread here to point out another egregious error right in the middle of the economic paper being examined. As I have noted before in past threads, such high school-tier errors are so bad that it looks as though these economics papers are not even proofread at all.
Picrel is the error and the following text is what I think the author was trying to convey:
>If government issues too much paper currency, then citizens will doubt the gold peg and turn in their paper for gold from their banks, and these Tier 2 banks, in turn, will then redeem that same paper from the US Treasury and drain the government’s gold
Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.
To make such an egregious error in the most important sentence in the entire paper begs the question, was it on purpose, mocking the public or are they trying to trick the public into turning in their gold again lololol?
The error in pic related is an example that NO ONE is watching or correcting these people. This author worked for Trump as an economic advisor in his first term. These are the people running the show. This is who we have to rely on to fix things and that is not good. This is why we must be vigilant even more so now, not to just let them install whatever fuck they think b/c THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
*************** I pause the thread here to point out another egregious error right in the middle of the economic paper being examined. As I have noted before in past threads, such high school-tier errors are so bad that it looks as though these economics papers are not even proofread at all.
Picrel is the error and the following text is what I think the author was trying to convey:
>If government issues too much paper currency, then citizens will doubt the gold peg and turn in their paper for gold from their banks, and these Tier 2 banks, in turn, will then redeem that same paper from the US Treasury and drain the government’s gold
Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.
To make such an egregious error in the most important sentence in the entire paper begs the question, was it on purpose, mocking the public or are they trying to trick the public into turning in their gold again lololol?
The error in pic related is an example that NO ONE is watching or correcting these people. This author worked for Trump as an economic advisor in his first term. These are the people running the show. This is who we have to rely on to fix things and that is not good. This is why we must be vigilant even more so now, not to just let them install whatever fuck they think b/c THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
6/28/2025, 3:04:39 PM
>>508953500
The third paper was weak, but the first of its kind to suggest the abolition of the Fed. One of the paper’s shortcomings detailed in an excerpt from the Part 3 of 4 thread:
*************** I pause the thread here to point out another egregious error right in the middle of the economic paper being examined. As I have noted before in past threads, such high school-tier errors are so bad that it looks as though these economics papers are not even proofread at all.
Picrel is the error and the following text is what I think the author was trying to convey:
>If government issues too much paper currency, then citizens will doubt the gold peg and turn in their paper for gold from their banks, and these Tier 2 banks, in turn, will then redeem that same paper from the US Treasury and drain the government’s gold
Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.
To make such an egregious error in the most important sentence in the entire paper begs the question, was it on purpose, mocking the public or are they trying to trick the public into turning in their gold again lololol?
The error in pic related is an example that NO ONE is watching or correcting these people. This author worked for Trump as an economic advisor in his first term. These are the people running the show. This is who we have to rely on to fix things and that is not good. This is why we must be vigilant even more so now, not to just let them install whatever fuck they think b/c THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The third paper was weak, but the first of its kind to suggest the abolition of the Fed. One of the paper’s shortcomings detailed in an excerpt from the Part 3 of 4 thread:
*************** I pause the thread here to point out another egregious error right in the middle of the economic paper being examined. As I have noted before in past threads, such high school-tier errors are so bad that it looks as though these economics papers are not even proofread at all.
Picrel is the error and the following text is what I think the author was trying to convey:
>If government issues too much paper currency, then citizens will doubt the gold peg and turn in their paper for gold from their banks, and these Tier 2 banks, in turn, will then redeem that same paper from the US Treasury and drain the government’s gold
Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.
To make such an egregious error in the most important sentence in the entire paper begs the question, was it on purpose, mocking the public or are they trying to trick the public into turning in their gold again lololol?
The error in pic related is an example that NO ONE is watching or correcting these people. This author worked for Trump as an economic advisor in his first term. These are the people running the show. This is who we have to rely on to fix things and that is not good. This is why we must be vigilant even more so now, not to just let them install whatever fuck they think b/c THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Page 1