Unruly State of Affairs in the United States of America

Recent Discoveries

USOA Latest Content

Portal Home

USOA v2.0 -- April 2025 -- Education & Outreach Committee -- HelpDesk Support is available... Click here to visit the Contact Page...

The IMF Is Broke and They Are Backing "the Money" with "The People": Is This Really Our Problem or Should We Just start something more American?

 

 

The IMF Is Broke and They Are Backing "the Money" with "The People":

Is This Really Our Problem or Should We Just Start Something More American?

By: Rosalyn Moreno

People like me are constantly told that the global financial system is too big to fail and that we, the taxpayers and data subjects, have to keep it afloat no matter what. But after digging into the latest government reports, DOJ settlements, and official IMF papers from 2026, I’m starting to wonder if the opposite is true: the IMF and the institutions pushing “tokenized finance” are the ones that are broke — morally, financially, and technologically — and they’re trying to turn our health data, physical bodies, and natural lives into the new collateral for their reconfigured but failing systems. The question isn’t whether we should fix it for them. The question is whether we should just let the whole rotten thing die.

Start with the foundation they’re building on: our health records.

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems are supposed to make medicine safer.

Instead, they’re riddled with stale data, false flags, and outright fraud. In fiscal year 2025, the Department of Justice raked in a record $6.8 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments — the highest single-year total in history.

Over $5.7 billion of that came from healthcare fraud. Major cases included Independent Health paying up to $98 million for submitting unsupported diagnosis codes in Medicare Advantage plans, Seoul Medical Group and affiliates coughing up over $60 million for fake spinal-condition codes, and a wound-care company settling for $45 million after its proprietary EHR system was programmed to default to higher billing codes. These aren’t isolated mistakes. They’re systemic. The systems run on outdated data sets, generate irrelevant alerts, and get gamed for profit.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) knows this. Their 2025 SAFER Guides — updated specifically to address AI-enabled CDS — openly warn about alert fatigue, poor data quality, and the need for better human oversight. Clinicians are bombarded with so many irrelevant pop-ups that they start ignoring the ones that actually matter. Studies show alert override rates as high as 73–100% in some settings, and EHRs routinely contain discrepant or inaccurate records that can lead to real patient harm. Yet these same broken systems are being used to generate “false flags” for wellness programs, resilience research, and behavioral tracking — even on people who have never stepped foot in their networks.

Now layer on tokenization — the process that turns our sensitive health data into “anonymous” tokens so it can be linked across massive Health Information Exchanges (what some call “The Mesh”). It’s sold as privacy-enhancing, but the risks are well-documented. Even tokenized data can be re-identified when linked with other datasets, especially when additional demographic or behavioral attributes are added. The HIPAA deidentification standards don’t magically make tokenized data safe; experts repeatedly point out that tokenization still leaves re-identification vulnerabilities in AI applications and multi-source environments. In other words, the privacy “solution” they’re selling us is itself flawed.

The plumbing underneath all of this? Infrastructure companies like Juniper Networks (now deeply integrated with HPE) provide the AI-native networking that powers real-time telemetry, EHR connectivity, telehealth, and secure data flows across healthcare systems. Their own marketing materials brag about building the backbone for exactly this kind of always-on, data-hungry environment. So the same networks that are supposed to keep our records safe are also enabling the constant monitoring and flagging that people never consented to.

Enter the IMF. On April 1, 2026, Tobias Adrian, Financial Counselor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department, published the official IMF Note titled “Tokenized Finance.” He calls tokenization “a profound reconfiguration of the financial system’s core infrastructure.” It’s not hype — it’s an admission that they’re trying to rebuild the entire global monetary architecture on programmable digital ledgers, stablecoins, and tokenized real-world assets. The paper is surprisingly honest about the dangers: faster crisis propagation, liquidity runs, erosion of monetary sovereignty, and the need for “safe settlement assets” and heavy new regulation if the whole thing isn’t going to collapse. Adrian stresses that success depends on “anchoring digital finance in public trust.” But how do you build public trust on a foundation of flawed health data, untested consent tethering, and systems that have already cost taxpayers billions in fraud settlements?

Here’s the part that should make every regular person angry: the IMF is broke in the old sense (struggling with relevance and legitimacy in a post-2008, post-COVID world) and they’re trying to make us the money. Our tokenized health data becomes the raw material for the new financial rails. Our physiological markers get turned into behavioral flags. Our refusal to participate is being dismissed as a lack of resilience. And when the inevitable crashes happen — because the paper itself warns they will — who gets left holding the bag? Not the IMF bureaucrats or the big banks. Us.

So is this really our problem? Or should we just let them die?

I say let the old system die. The fraud, the data errors, the privacy theater, and the desperate pivot to tokenized everything are symptoms of a financial architecture that no longer serves human beings. We don’t owe the IMF or its partners our health data, our consent, or our future solvency to prop up their failing experiment. The real solution isn’t more regulation or better “guardrails.” It’s radical decentralization, actual informed consent, and a hard stop on non-consensual data tethering.

We’ve already paid enough. The $6.8 billion in 2025 fraud recoveries came out of our taxes and our premiums. The tokenized future they’re rushing toward will come out of our privacy and our autonomy. Enough. Let the broken system collapse under the weight of its own lies. The rest of us can build something better on actual truth, actual consent, and actual human dignity.

References Adrian, Tobias. “Tokenized Finance.” IMF Notes 2026/001, International Monetary Fund, April 1, 2026. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/imf-notes/issues/2026/04/01/tokenized-finance-574921.

U.S. Department of Justice. “False Claims Act Settlements and Judgments Exceed $6.8B in Fiscal Year 2025.” January 16, 2026. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/false-claims-act-settlements-and-judgments-exceed-68b-fiscal-year-2025.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). “2025 SAFER Guides Now Available.” 2025. https://healthit.gov/resources/2025-safer-guides-now-available/.

Juniper Networks. “Healthcare and Life Sciences | AI-Native Networking.” Accessed 2026. https://www.juniper.net/us/en/solutions/industries/healthcare-and-life-sciences.html.

(Additional studies on alert fatigue and tokenization re-identification risks drawn from peer-reviewed sources and ONC guidance cited in the body.)



Talk: Utah Phillips

Unsourced

Wikiquote no longer allows unsourced quotations, and they are in process of being removed from their pages (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations); but if you can provide a reliable and precise source for any quote on this list please move it to Utah Phillips.

  • "The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."

  • "I'm here to change the world, and if I am not, I am probably wasting my time."

  • "We've all got to own what we are each doing, rather than work and let somebody else make the profit off of it.

  • We've got to fight in this culture to hang on to our own souls, to hang on to our own creativity.
  • Once I got into this folk music world and understood what I could do and that it belonged to me, I looked back on my years of employment with absolute horror. It was bondage, wage slavery. Sure, if somebody else is making the rules every day, it's a little bit easier, and you can turn your mind off. But none of my parts -- my intellect, my curiosity -- was being served by that experience. When I got out in the world as a sovereign being, I found that all of my parts were being used."

  • “But if it’s true that the only true life I had was the life of my brain, what sense does it make to hand that brain to somebody for eight hours a day for their particular use on the presumption that, at the end of the day, they will give it back in an unmutilated condition? Fat chance!”

  • "The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. Freedom is something you're born with, and then one day someone tries to deny it. The extent to which you resist is the extent to which you are free."

  • "But they lived those extraordinary lives that can never be lived again. And in the living of them, they gave me a history that is more profound, more beautiful, more powerful, more passionate, and ultimately more useful, than the best damn history book I ever read.

  • I coulda got mad. But then I had to stop and think, well, what did he get in school? What did he get in his work experience? What did he get even from his own union, that gave him some tools to understand what he was seeing?


Details
Written By: James Allen Homyak
Parent Category: Reading Materials
Category: Unruly States of Affairs in the United States of America
Hits: 65

USOA Menu

Member's Virtual Center

  •  

     

    THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

    By Ellen Brown on May 11, 2026

    A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has long been proposed as a way to cushion the blow of jobs lost to automation. Under that model, everyone receives a modest monthly payment – enough to cover basic needs and prevent extreme poverty. 

    But Elon Musk has gone further. On April 16, he posted on X:

    Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.

    Rather than a subsistence stipend, Universal High Income (UHI) would be a level of income allowing ordinary people to live well in a world where machines do most of the work. Musk has also said that AI and robotics are the only things that can solve the massive U.S. debt crisis. 

    That sounds promising, but where will the government get the money to pay the UHI? Critics say any government that tried it would go bankrupt. There are also other concerns, which will be addressed in Part 2 of this article. Here we will look at the financial underpinnings: why UHI is even thinkable, why AI forces a reexamination of how money enters the economy, why the current system cannot scale to meet what is coming, and the implicit transition needed to meet that challenge.

    Why the Current Money System Cannot Scale

    The national debt of the U.S. government just topped $39 trillion. China’s is $18.7 trillion. Japan’s is $8.6 trillion. Those of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are each in the multi-trillion-dollar range. Collective global debt now stands at $353 trillion, 305% of the world’s annual economic output. So even if, hypothetically, everything produced in the world in a year were applied toward liquidating the debt, it still would not be enough to pay it all off. 

    In fact the debt can never be repaid, because of the way money currently enters the system. Nearly all of the money supply today is created by banks when they make loans. Banks do not lend their existing capital. The loan itself creates the money. The bank adds the loan amount to the asset side of its balance sheet and balances that sum with the same amount on the liability side. When the borrower withdraws or transfers the funds, either the bank takes them from its reserves in “vault cash” or the Federal Reserve debits the bank’s digital reserve account at the central bank. But the lending bank typically has funds coming into its reserve account at about the same rate as they are going out, so its reserves are continually replenished. Thus a very small reserve account can support a much larger money creation engine. For decades before the Fed discontinued the reserve requirement in 2020, it hovered at around 10%.

    The chief problem with this debt-based system is the interest, which the bank does not create in its original loan. For a typical long-term loan, interest can double the total tab or more. Where is the money to come from to pay this added liability? Across the system as a whole, it must either come from more borrowing or from existing funds. In the case of governments, that means issuing interest-bearing bonds or tapping taxes and other revenues. The interest on the debt compounds, meaning the government is paying interest on interest. This makes the debt increase exponentially, until it is mathematically unsustainable. Then bankruptcies occur, of banks or even whole governments. Booms turn into busts, and the cycle begins again.

    Today, interest on the federal debt is the second largest budget line item after Social Security, exceeding $1 trillion. Meanwhile, workers are losing jobs to AI/robotics, shrinking the income tax base. The system is clearly unsustainable.

    How to Raise Demand to Scale to the Upcoming Supply

    A Universal High Income would replenish the shrinking tax base by replacing the lost wages of unemployed workers. But where will the money come from to pay the UHI? The only sustainable solution is for the government to issue it interest-free. That does not mean through the Federal Reserve, which creates money in the same way banks do: it buys federal interest-bearing securities with accounting entries. The Fed collects the interest, which it is supposed to return to the Treasury after deducting its costs. But since 2008, its costs include paying interest on the reserves of its participating banks, which consumes its profits. (See my earlier article here.) 

    The only interest-free, debt-free solution that will actually increase the money supply sufficiently to match the projected productivity of AI/robotics is for the money to be issued directly by the Treasury.

    This is not a radical new idea. It is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, which provides in Article 1, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power To … coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof .…” Abraham Lincoln used government-issued “Greenbacks” to avoid a crippling debt to British-backed bankers. Debt-free government-issued money was also the funding mechanism by which the American colonists succeeded in creating a thriving economy and liberating themselves from the oppressive yoke of the British Empire.

    In his 1729 pamphlet “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency,” Benjamin Franklin argued that a lack of currency was a tax on industrious farmers and producers, and that a reliable, locally issued paper currency was the “oil” for the gears of trade. The “Nature and Necessity” of this currency was to facilitate the movement of goods between neighbors. Franklin observed that the British strategy of keeping the colonies short of cash was a method of economic suppression. By forcing the colonies to use gold and silver, which were constantly drained back to London to pay for imports, the Crown kept the colonies in a state of permanent debt and low productivity. When the money supply matched the productive capacity of the people, universal prosperity resulted without inflation. 

    This logic evolved into the “American System of Political Economy” championed by Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. He wrote:

    Two systems are before the world… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. … One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.

    In the context of the 21st century, the “oil” that best lowers the friction of trade is debt-free government-issued money similar to Lincoln’s Greenbacks and colonial scrip. Rather than implementing a radical financial innovation, we would be returning to our roots.

    Inflation or Deflation?

    The chief objection to the colonies’ paper “scrip” was that they tended to over-print, so that “demand” (money) outstripped supply. Too much money chasing too few goods produced price inflation. But in the 21st century, we will soon have the opposite problem: too little money chasing too many goods. Machines don’t need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical treatment or other services. So who will buy those goods and services? 

    Money needs to be issued to human consumers, and not just to a few wealthy human consumers serving as debt brokers thriving on interest. To create sufficient demand for the voluminous output of AI/robotics, it needs to go to the whole national population, evenly distributed. Not only can UHI work in that sort of abundant supply without producing price inflation; it is actually essential to prevent deflation.

    In a conversation on X, Musk wrote:

    In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robotics massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation. 

    As paraphrased on Yahoo Finance (reposted from Benzinga), Musk wrote that handing out more dollars becomes a problem only when the economy’s supply of goods and services fails to surge alongside the money supply. His claim is that AI and robotics could lift production so sharply that the bigger risk would be falling prices, not rising ones.

    But aren’t falling prices a good thing? In this case, no. Prices would be falling due to a lack of demand, meaning producers can’t find customers for their products. They wind up laying off workers and eventually going bankrupt. When spread across the whole economy, the result is a deflationary spiral: prices fall, businesses lose revenue, and the economy contracts, not because production is inadequate but because purchasing power is insufficient. The result is recession or depression. In the Great Depression of the 1930s, food was rotting in the fields while people were starving, because they were out of work and had no money to spend. 

    Job cuts from AI are already happening. According to the same Benzinga article:

    Evidence of near-term strain is showing up in corporate announcements: employers disclosed more than 27,000 job cuts linked to AI in the first quarter of 2026, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The outplacement firm said that figure was up 40% from the same period a year earlier. 

    Robert Reich reports that wages are around two-thirds of the typical corporation’s total cost, and that in the first four months of 2026, big U.S. corporations cut over 128,000 jobs. 

    How Soon Will All This Happen?

    Another Benzinga article, reposted on Yahoo Finance on March 16, detailed Musk’s projected time frame:

    Speaking remotely to the Abundance Summit last week, Musk told XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis that the global economy is on the verge of an explosion so massive it defies historical precedent.

    “I’d say the economy is 10 times its current size in 10 years,” Musk said, before quickly clarifying that the growth could be even more explosive. “Greater than,” he added, framing the projected shift in economic output as a “fairly comfortable prediction.” …

    Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, sees AI reaching Artificial General Intelligence (human-level intelligence across virtually all domains) by 2029, and full transformative abundance by 2045.

    Other experts question these time projections, but a radical transformation of traditional manufacturing and trade is likely to happen sometime in the reasonably near future. The question is, will the money system transition soon enough to rescue all the laid-off workers from homelessness and famine?

    The Sovereign Wealth Fund Alternative

    There is another model for distributing the gains of automation, one that can be phased in gradually as the AI workforce expands. It comes from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. In an ironic twist, Altman and Musk, who jointly founded OpenAI in 2015, are now locked in a high-profile legal battle over whether Altman diverted Musk’s $44 million investment to transform what was conceived as a nonprofit “for the benefit of humanity” into a highly lucrative for-profit enterprise.

    That dispute aside, Altman’s alternative model for sharing AI-generated wealth is a national sovereign wealth fund seeded by the profits of AI and robotics. His proposed American Equity Fund would take public stakes in the companies and technologies driving automation, capture a portion of the resulting productivity gains, and distribute them as universal dividends. The Fund would not replace a Universal High Income but would complement it.

    This approach has several advantages. It ties payments directly to real output, scales automatically with productivity, and can be introduced gradually, avoiding the shock of issuing large payments before the supply side has fully expanded. It would resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil revenues to residents, except that here the resource would be the most powerful general-purpose technology since electricity.

    Conclusion: A New Monetary Logic for a New Productive Era

    For centuries, money has been issued as a claim against the future productivity of human labor, repaid from the income that labor generates. The logic of this debt-based system collapses when machines become the primary producers of goods and services. Then the limiting factor becomes purchasing power — the ability of human beings to access the abundance their own technologies create. That requires a monetary architecture that expands with output rather than debt, and distributes income not through wages alone but through mechanisms tied to the productive capacity of the whole system.

    Universal High Income and a sovereign wealth fund are two ways of doing that. One ensures a stable floor of demand; the other ensures that the public shares in the gains of automation. Both would be grounded in real production. But for the public to have access to those gains, the money supply needs to expand in proportion to the expanding pool of goods and services. This can be done by restoring the innovation our forefathers baked into the Constitution: debt-free money issued by the government itself.

    How to fund a UHI without triggering inflation or driving the government into bankruptcy is the first objection critics raise, but there are others. They argue that people would stop working or stop learning, that society would collapse into idleness or chaos, that life would lose meaning without jobs, that the government would have the power to control how people spend their money.  Will a UHI ring in the promised utopia or lock us into a state-controlled digital prison? Part 2 of this article will address those concerns. 

    _______________

    This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.tom of Form

     

     

  •  

    WAY TO GO MR PUTIN - RUSSIA FINALIZES 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

    Posted By: The_Fox [Send E-Mail]
    Date: Thursday, 1-Dec-2022 05:31:08
    www.rumormill.news/212414

     

    Many a time I often think about moving to Russia, so sick and tired of living here in the West.

    Over there things get done and child molesters etc don't just get away with a slapped wrist, free to again prey on the innocent.

    Those promoting society's moral decay will now have to answer for their actions also.

    Way to go Mr Putin.

    Read more: 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

Older Content

Similar Items